Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of transactivity
- 787 Downloads
Collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples are effective means to scaffold university freshmen’s mathematical argumentation skills. Yet, which collaborative learning processes are responsible for these effects has remained unclear. Learners presumably will gain the most out of collaboration if the collaborators refer to each other’s contributions in a dialectic way (dialectic transactivity). Learners also may refer to each other’s contributions in a dialogic way (dialogic transactivity). Alternatively, learners may not refer to each other’s contributions at all, but still construct knowledge (constructive activities). This article investigates the extent to which constructive activities, dialogic transactivity, and dialectic transactivity generated by either the learner or the learning partner can explain the positive effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the learners’ disposition to use argumentation skills. We conducted a 2 × 2 experiment with the factors collaboration script and heuristic worked examples with N = 101 math teacher students. Results showed that the learners’ engagement in self-generated dialectic transactivity (i.e., responding to the learning partner’s contribution in an argumentative way by critiquing and/or integrating their learning partner’s contributions) mediated the effects of both scaffolds on their disposition to use argumentation skills, whereas partner-generated dialectic transactivity or any other measured collaborative learning activity did not. To support the disposition to use argumentation skills in mathematics, learning environments should thus be designed in a way to help learners display dialectic transactivity. Future research should investigate how learners might better benefit from the dialectic transactivity generated by their learning partners.
KeywordsTransactivity Collaboration scripts Heuristic worked examples Argumentation Mathematics
This research is part of the project ELK-Math, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant RE 1247/9-1 and FI 792/7-1. This contribution contains work that is part of the doctoral dissertation of Freydis Vogel under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Frank Fischer and Prof. Dr. Ingo Kollar.
- Boero, P. (1999). Argumentation and mathematical proof: A complex, productive, unavoidable relationship in mathematics and mathematics education. Preuve: International Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof, (July/August 1999). Retrieved from http://www.lettredelapreuve.it/OldPreuve/Newsletter/990708Theme/990708ThemeUK.html.
- Hron, A., Cress, U., Hammer, K., & Friedrich, H. F. (2007). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in a video-based learning setting: Effects of a shared workspace and content-specific graphical representation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 236–248. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00619.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757:AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning—Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2014). Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction, 32(1), 22–36. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Molinari, G., Sangin, M., Dillenbourg, P., & Nüssli, M.-A. (2009). Knowledge interdependence with the partner, accuracy of mutual knowledge model and computer-supported collaborative learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 129–144. doi: 10.1007/BF03173006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Ed.). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
- Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229. doi: 10.1177/1046496403260843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Situated cognition and technologically supported environments (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2011). Explaining the effects of continuous and faded scripts on online search skills: The role of collaborative strategy practice. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL 2011 conference proceedings. Volume I—Long papers (pp. 390–397). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar