Advertisement

Social argumentation in online synchronous communication

  • Esra Alagoz
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The ability to argue well is a valuable skill for students in both formal and informal learning environments. While many studies have explored the argumentative practices in formal environments and some researchers have developed tools to enhance the argumentative skills, the social argumentation that is occurring in informal spaces has yet to be broadly investigated. The challenges associated with observing and capturing the interactions in authentic settings can be identified as the main reasons for this deficiency. On the other hand, the advancements in information technologies and the way these improvements lift the barriers between school and afterschool settings present ways to eliminate these challenges. To this end, this study utilizes a popular Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG), World of Warcraft (WoW), which provides an authentic environment, to investigate the quality of argumentation in online synchronous communication without interfering with the substantial characteristics of the interaction. The results of the study demonstrate the quality of argumentation skills that a group of adolescents are displaying in online synchronous WoW chat as well as the patterns that emerge from the interplay between a number of contextual variables including synchronicity, interest, and authenticity.

Keywords

Argumentation Online synchronous communication MMORPG Authenticity Counterargument analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Constance Steinkuehler for her guidance and valuable feedback throughout this research. Many thanks also to the associate editor and anonymous reviewers for their suggestions that substantially improved the paper.

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003a). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Van De Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003b). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barab, S.A., Gresalfi, M., Ingram-Goble, A., Jameson, E., Hickey, D., Akram, S., et al. (2009). Transformational play and virtual worlds: Worked examples from the Quest Atlantis project. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2).Google Scholar
  7. Bessiere, K., Seay, A., & Kiesler, S. (2007). The ideal Elf: Identity exploration in world of warcraft. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest. How they interact in learning from instructional texts. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 126–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, J. C. C., Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). Asynchronous online discussion thread development: Examining growth patterns and peer-facilitation techniques. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 438–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts& literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.Google Scholar
  14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  15. De Moor, A., & Efimova, L. (2004). An argumentation analysis of weblog conversations. Paper presented at the 9th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2004), New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  16. 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(1), 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D., & Ruess, K. (2003). Motivation, usability, and learning outcomes in a prototype museum-based multiuser virtual environment. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth ICLS. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153.Google Scholar
  20. Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading ethnographic research: A critical guide. New York: Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Junker, B. H. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirschner, P. A., Shum, S. J. B., & Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation, and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Linnenbrink, R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327.Google Scholar
  39. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muller Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument–counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reed, C., & Wells, S. (2007). Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6), 60–65.Google Scholar
  46. Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp. 373–404). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosas, O., & Dhen, G. (2012). One self to rule them all: A critical discourse analysis of French-Speaking Players’ identity construction in world of warcraft. In N. Zagalo, L. Morgado & A. Boa-Ventura (Eds), Virtual worlds and metaverse platforms: New communication and identity paradigms. Hershey: IGI Global Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 19e42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning, what we know and what we don’t know. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender (pp. 91–104). Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  53. Simkins, D., & Steinkuehler, C. (2008). Critical ethical reasoning & role play. Games & Culture, 3, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31, 24–33.Google Scholar
  55. Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stahl, G. (2007). CSCL and its flash themes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steinkuehler, C., & Chmiel, M. (2006). Fostering scientific habits of mind in the context of online play. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, N. B. Songer, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 723–729). Mahwah: Erlbuam.Google Scholar
  59. Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885–909.Google Scholar
  61. Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, C. (2009). Math as narrative in World of Warcraft forum discussions. The International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(3).Google Scholar
  62. Steinkuehler, C., Compton-Lilly, C., & King, E. (2010). Reading in the context of online games. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) volume 1, full papers (pp. 222–230). Chicago: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  63. Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues.Google Scholar
  64. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  66. Van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.Google Scholar
  67. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  70. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., Nelson, L., & Likarish, P. (2011). Introverted elves and conscientious gnomes. The expression of personality in world of warcraft. Proceedings of CHI, 2011, 753–762.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin- MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options