Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation

  • Christa S. C. Asterhan
  • Baruch B. Schwarz


In this paper, we present findings on moderation of synchronous, small-group argumentation in blended, co-located learning environments. Drawing on findings from the literature on human facilitation of dialogue in face-to-face settings, we first elaborate on the potential promise of this new practice. However, little is known about what constitutes effective human facilitation in synchronous e-discussions. A multi-method exploratory approach was then adopted to provide first insights into some of the difficulties and characteristics of moderation in these settings. To this end, we focused on (1) students’ perspectives on what constitutes effective e-moderation of synchronous peer argumentation in classrooms and (2) the relations between characteristics of actual and perceived moderation effectiveness. The analyses presented in this paper reveal that the role of the e-moderator in synchronous peer discussions is a complex one and that expectations from e-moderators seem at times even contradictory. Also, comparisons with findings on moderation in other communication formats (e.g., asynchronous, face-to-face) show that insights on effective instructional practices in these formats cannot be simply transferred to synchronous communication formats. We close this paper by briefly describing a tool that provides real-time support for e-moderators of synchronous group discussions, and whose development had been sparked by these findings in a further cycle of our design research program. Several questions and hypotheses are articulated to be investigated in future research, both with these new tools and in general.


Online peer discussions Argumentation Human support Teacher and tutor roles Synchronous CMC 



The research reported in this paper was conducted within the framework of the ARGUNAUT project, which was funded by the European Community (IST-2005-027728). We would like to thank Maria Mishenkina and Julia Gil for coordinating data collection and coding procedures and Reuma de Groot, Rakheli Hever, Raul Drachman, and three anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier drafts of this article.


  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Andriessen, J. E. B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In A.-N. Perret-Clermont & N. Muller-Mirza (Eds.), Argumentation and education—theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145–176). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Eisenmann, T. (2009). Online and face-to-face discussions in the classroom: A study on the experiences of ‘active’ and ‘silent’ students. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 132–136).Google Scholar
  4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 373–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interaction in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 15, 22–30. Available [Online]: Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning, and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 33, 301–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 365–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.Google Scholar
  17. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.Google Scholar
  18. Collison, G., Elbaum, G., Haavind, S., & Tinher, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning—effective strategies for moderators. Madison: Atwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Condon, S. L., & Cech, C. G. (1996). Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interactions. Electronic Journal of Communication/La revue électronique de communication 6(3), Retrieved on July 16, 2009, from
  20. Cress, U., Kimmerle, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2009). Impact of temporal extension, synchronicity, and group size on computer-supported information exchange. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 731–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Groot, R., Drachman, R., Hever, R., Schwarz, B. B., Hoppe, U., Harrer, A., et al. (2007). Computer supported moderation of e-discussions: The ARGUNAUT approach. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2007 (Vol. 8, pp. 165–167).Google Scholar
  22. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, P. (2007). Online teaching in networked communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Denise, B., Watland, P., Pirotte, S., & Verday N. (2004). Roles and competencies of the e-tutor. Proceedings of the 2004 Networked Learning Conference. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from:
  24. De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Gijselaers, W. J., Moust, J. H. C., De Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2002). Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: Conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Medical Teacher, 2, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gil, J., Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2007). Intuitive moderation styles and beliefs of teachers in CSCL-based argumentation. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2007 (Vol. 8, pp. 219–229).Google Scholar
  27. Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity in Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38, 29–35.Google Scholar
  28. Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 7–27.Google Scholar
  31. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hlapanis, G., Kordaki, M., & Dimitrikapoulou, A. (2006). Successful e-courses: The role of synchronous communication and e-moderation via chat. Campus-wide Information Systems, 23, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hmelo, C., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1, 21–39.Google Scholar
  35. Hoppe, U., de Groot, R., & Hever, R. (2009). Collaboration and awareness technologies in the classroom: Technical and pedagogical aspects of integration. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 130–142). New York: Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction series.Google Scholar
  36. Howe, C. (2009). Expert support for group work in elementary science: The role of consensus. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction. New perspectives in learning and instruction (pp. 93–105). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Katz, S., & O’Donnell, G. (1999). The cognitive skill of coaching collaboration. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL'99) (pp. 291–299). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370.Google Scholar
  40. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127–148.Google Scholar
  41. Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Ilomaki, L., Niemiverta, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Approaches for analyzing tutors’ role in a networked inquiry discourse. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 389–396). Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  42. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Lentell, H., & O’Rourke, J. (2004). Tutoring large numbers: An unmet challenge. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 5. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from:
  44. Lim, C. P., & Cheah, P. T. (2003). The role of the tutor in asynchronous discussion boards: A case study of a pre-service teacher course. Educational Media International, 40(1–2), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lund, K. (2004). Human support in CSCL: What, for whom and by whom? In J.-W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirshner, R. L. Martens, & P. Dillenbourg (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, CSCL (Vol. 3, pp. 167–198). Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marvin, L. E. (1995). Spoof, spam, lurk and lag: The aesthetics of text-based virtual realities. The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2), retrieved on May 17, 2010 from
  48. Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Eds.). (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  49. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (in press). Supporting collaborative learning and e-Discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED).Google Scholar
  52. McPherson, M., & Nunes, M. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of online learning support. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved April 24 2010 from
  53. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  54. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instruction and need for cognition in interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Packham, G., Jones, P., Thomas, B., & Miller, C. (2006). Student and tutor perspectives of on-line moderation. Education & Training, 48(4), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom—the realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  59. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. Elementary School Journal, 107, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning on-line. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  62. Salmon, G., & Giles, K. (1997). Training virtual management teachers. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Available online at
  63. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, K. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (in press). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  65. Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two “wrongs” may make a right...If they argue together! Cognition & Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schwarz, B. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Gil, J. (2009). Human guidance of synchronous e-discussions: The effects of different moderation scripts on peer argumentation. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 497–506).Google Scholar
  69. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  71. Tolmie, A., Thomson, J. A., Foot, H. C., Whelan, K., Morrison, S., & McLaren, B. (2005). The effects of adult guidance and peer discussion on the development of children’s representations: Evidence from the training of pedestrian skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 181–204.Google Scholar
  72. Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–521.Google Scholar
  73. Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning & Instruction, 10, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Walker, A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  79. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., et al. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 360–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wegerif, R. (1996). Using computers to help coach exploratory talk across the curriculum. Computers & Education, 26, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., et al. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54, 613–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Learning Research & Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations