Critical Thinker: Supporting Collaborative Argumentation with Structure and Awareness

Collaborative learning technology has been widely applied in various disciplines in support of dialectical discourse and argumentation. Technologies not only allow multiple users to concurrently analyze and edit documents in the same virtual space but also present richer cues for collaboration awareness. However, researchers still know very little about how the synching mechanisms work together to support small group collaborative argument creation. This study investigates the experiences of 14 dyads that worked together in Critical Thinker, a web application that enables learners to collaborate on an argumentative task with a juxtaposed argumentation structure and multiple synchronous collaboration affordances. Our qualitative data showed that the learners are able to leverage different synching mechanisms in a complementary manner and appropriate the dialectic structure for collaborative argumentation.

[1]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[2]  Jos Jaspers.  VCRI : A groupware application for CSCL research , 2005 .

[3]  Patrick C. Shih,et al.  DESIGN FOR SUPPORTING DIALECTICAL CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ACTIVITIES , 2014 .

[4]  Jerry Andriessen,et al.  Collaborative argumentation in academic education , 2002 .

[5]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  Niels Pinkwart,et al.  LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  D. Suthers.  Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. , 2003 .

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

[9]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[10]  Eileen Scanlon,et al.  Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[11]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Computer-mediated epistemic interactions for co-constructing scientific notions: Lessons learned from a five-year research programme , 2001 .

[12]  Friedrich W. Hesse,et al.  Discussion: Being Told to Do Something or Just Being Aware of Something? An Alternative Approach to Scripting in CSCL , 2007 .

[13]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Support for workspace awareness in educational groupware , 1995, CSCL.

[14]  Chutiporn Anutariya,et al.  Analyzing Community Deliberation and Achieving Consensual Knowledge in SAM , 2010, Int. J. Organ. Collect. Intell..

[15]  N. Mercer.  The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom , 1996, Language and the Joint Creation of Knowledge.

[16]  Sunyoung Joung,et al.  Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[17]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes , 2003 .

[18]  Michael Billig,et al.  Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology , 1987 .

[19]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines , 2010 .

[20]  Patrick C. Shih,et al.  Re-appropriating a question/answer system to support dialectical constructivist learning activity , 2016 .

[21]  Neil Mercer,et al.  From Social Interaction to Individual Reasoning : An Empirical Investigation of a Possible Model of Cognitive Development , 2004 .

[22]  Angelique Dimitracopoulou,et al.  Designing collaborative learning systems: current trends & future research agenda , 2005, CSCL.

[23]  J. Dewey,et al.  How We Think , 2009 .

[24]  L. Vygotsky.  Interaction between learning and development , 1978 .

[25]  Janyce Wiebe,et al.  A machine learning approach to assessing knowledge sharing during collaborative learning activities , 2002, CSCL.