Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences

In this paper, we describe a constraint-based discussion board that we have developed. A number of discourse systems have sought to constrain the ways that learners converse by requiring them to classify the nature of the comments and replies to others' comments. Those systems imposed a single constraint system on learners. In our system, we enable users to adjust the structure and content of the system in order to support a variety of discourses, including argumentation, problem-solution, literary analysis, and any other kind of activity. We describe the rationale for the system and will demonstrate the results of two discussions during the conference.

[1]  Stuart S. Yeh.  Empowering Education: Teaching Argumentative Writing to Cultural Minority Middle-School Students , 1998, Research in the Teaching of English.

[2]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An Architecture for Intelligent Collaborative Educational Systems. , 1997 .

[3]  F. Darses.  The constraint satisfaction approach to design : a psychological investigation , 1991 .

[4]  P. Senge.  The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization/ Peter M. Senge , 1991 .

[5]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Decision Development in Computer-Assisted Group Decision Making , 1995 .

[6]  Louise A. Mauffette-Leenders,et al.  Learning with Cases , 2001 .

[7]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Collaborative learning at low cost: CoWeb use in English composition , 2002, CSCL.

[8]  Richard W. Leeman.  Taking Perspectives: Teaching Critical Thinking in the Argumentation Course. , 1987 .

[9]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities , 1994 .

[10]  M. Chi,et al.  From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts , 1994 .

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

[12]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Learning by Constructing Collaborative Representations: An Empirical Comparison of Three Alternatives. , 2001 .

[13]  Bill Cerbin.  The Nature and Development of Informal Reasoning Skills in College Students. , 1988 .

[14]  Naomi Miyake,et al.  Relation-Making to Sense-Making: Supporting College Students' Constructive Understanding with an Enriched Collaborative Note-Sharing System , 2000 .

[15]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Representations for Scaffolding Collaborative Inquiry on Ill-Structured Problems. , 1998 .

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

[17]  S. Toulmin,et al.  An introduction to reasoning , 1979 .

[18]  J. F. Voss,et al.  Learning to Reason via Instruction in Argumentation. , 1991 .

[19]  Charles Tijus,et al.  Problem-Solving Restructuration: Elimination of Implicit Constraints , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  Ruth E. Knudson.  Effects of Instructional Strategies, Grade, and Sex on Students’ Persuasive Writing , 1991 .

[21]  Robert H. Gass,et al.  Does Teaching Argumentation Facilitate Critical Thinking , 1994 .

[22]  M. Chi.  Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide , 1997 .

[23]  J. Roschelle.  Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[24]  M. Linn,et al.  Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment , 2000 .

[25]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Software-Realized Scaffolding to Facilitate Programming for Science Learning , 1994, Interact. Learn. Environ..