Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of transactivity

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.

[1]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Fostering Argument Justification Using Collaboration Scripts and Content Schemes , 2011 .

[2]  Aiso Heinze,et al.  Mathematics achievement and interest in mathematics from a differential perspective , 2005 .

[3]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking , 2011, Psychological science.

[4]  R. Duschl,et al.  "Doing the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in High School Genetics , 2000 .

[5]  F. Fischer,et al.  Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis , 2006 .

[6]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[7]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[8]  M. Chi,et al.  The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes , 2014 .

[9]  A. King ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning , 1997 .

[10]  A. Su,et al.  The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics , 1932, The Mathematical Gazette.

[11]  Joyce M. Alexander,et al.  Learning Within Scripted and Nonscripted Peer-Tutoring Sessions: The Malaysian Context , 2005 .

[12]  Simon Colton,et al.  Bridging the Gap Between Argumentation Theory and the Philosophy of Mathematics , 2009 .

[13]  M. Valcke,et al.  Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: Comparing scripting by assigning roles with regulation by cross-age peer tutors , 2010 .

[14]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Observing Tutorial Dialogues Collaboratively: Insights About Human Tutoring Effectiveness From Vicarious Learning , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  E. Cohen Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[16]  John R. Anderson ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. , 1996 .

[17]  Omid Noroozi,et al.  Scripting for construction of a transactive memory system in multidisciplinary CSCL environments , 2013 .

[18]  S. Derry,et al.  Learning from Examples: Instructional Principles from the Worked Examples Research , 2000 .

[19]  Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns,et al.  “You're going to want to find out which and prove it”: collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom , 1998 .

[20]  F. Fischer,et al.  Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis , 2017 .

[21]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Personally‐Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation , 2007 .

[22]  Baruch B. Schwarz,et al.  The Role of Task Design and Argumentation in Cognitive Development during Peer Interaction: The Case of Proportional Reasoning. , 2007 .

[23]  F. Paas,et al.  Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach , 1994 .

[24]  Stephan Kessler,et al.  Learning to prove in geometry: Learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported , 2008 .

[25]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. , 2014, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[26]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[27]  Stephanie D. Teasley Talking about reasoning : How important is the peer in peer collaboration? , 1997 .

[28]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Knowledge interdependence with the partner, accuracy of mutual knowledge model and computer-supported collaborative learning , 2009 .

[29]  Selma Leitão,et al.  The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building , 2000, Human Development.

[30]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 2012 .

[31]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Fostering Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Case-Based Learning Scenarios in Videoconferencing , 2006 .

[32]  Baruch B. Schwarz,et al.  Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications From Protocol Analyses of Peer-to-Peer Dialog , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  R. Wegerif Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue , 2008 .

[34]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[35]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[36]  Susan M. Land,et al.  Scaffolding Peer-questioning Strategies to Facilitate Metacognition During Online Small Group Discussion , 2005 .

[37]  W. Jochems,et al.  The Effect of Functional Roles on Group Efficiency , 2004 .

[38]  T. Gog,et al.  Example-Based Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social-Cognitive Research Perspectives , 2010 .

[39]  Omid Noroozi,et al.  Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A Synthesis of 15 Years of Research. , 2012 .

[40]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Learning to prove: The idea of heuristic examples , 2002 .

[41]  F. Fischer,et al.  Toward a Script Theory of Guidance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2013, Educational psychologist.

[42]  F. Hesse,et al.  Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in virtual learning groups. , 2000, The British journal of educational psychology.

[43]  A. King Scripting Collaborative Learning Processes: A Cognitive Perspective , 2007 .

[44]  Armin Weinberger,et al.  Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams , 2014 .

[45]  Baruch B. Schwarz,et al.  Perspective taking and synchronous argumentation for learning the day/night cycle , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[46]  A. Renkl,et al.  Reasoning and proof in geometry: effects of a learning environment based on heuristic worked-out examples , 2008 .

[47]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research , 2004 .

[48]  M. Baker,et al.  Computer-Mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions , 2002 .

[49]  F. Fischer,et al.  Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement , 2014 .

[50]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not) , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[51]  W. Thurston On Proof and Progress in Mathematics , 1994, math/9404236.

[52]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in a video-based learning setting: effects of a shared workspace and a content-specific graphical representation , 2007, Br. J. Educ. Technol..