This article reports a study in which thirty-one undergraduate students practiced academic argumentation by electronic mail (e-mail). In the two “tutorled” e-mail study groups the discussion topics were selected by the tutor, while in the two self-directed “student-led” groups selection was by the students. The quantity and quality of student-student interaction, and the factors associated with this were investigated. The results indicated that 42 percent of the students' messages (n = 441) were interactive in nature, indicating at least one reference to fellow students' messages. When difficult contents were addressed, interaction in the tutor-led groups was more common than in the student-led groups. The student-student interaction was mainly non-argumentative: 62 percent of the students' references (n = 259) expressed something other than the taking a position, 24 percent agreement, 10 percent grounded disagreement, and 4 percent non-grounded disagreement. The students in the student-led groups grounded their disagreement more often, while the students in the tutor-led groups more often expressed agreement. The study supports the superiority of the student-led mode of e-mail studying over the tutor-led mode when promoting argumentative dialogue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WellsR., The Use of Computer-Mediated Communication in Distance Education: Progress, Problems, and Trends, in Teleteaching, Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 Third Teleteaching Conference, TeleTeaching 93, Trondheim, Norway, August 20–25, DaviesG.SamwaysB. (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 79–88, 1993.
2.
ThomasR., Electronic Communication in Mass Distance Education—A Case History Based on Open University Experience, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Distance Education in Russia, ICDED '94, Distance Learning and New Technologies in Education, July 5–8, 1994, Association for International Education, Moscow, pp. 337–344, 1994.
3.
AlaviM., Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 18:2, pp. 159–174, 1994.
4.
BurgeE. J., Learning in Computer Conferenced Contexts: The Learners' Perspective, Journal of Distance Education, 9:1, pp. 19–43, 1994.
5.
HintikkaJ.BachmanJ., What if …? Towards Excellence in Reasoning, Mayfield, London, 1991.
6.
VossJ. F.MeansM. L., Learning to Reason via Instruction in Argumentation, Learning and Instruction, 1:4, pp. 337–350, 1991.
7.
ToulminS.RiekeR.JanikA., An Introduction to Reasoning, Macmillan, New York, 1984.
8.
NorrisS. P.EnnisR. H., Evaluating Critical Thinking, Midwest, Pacific Grove, 1989.
9.
AdamsM. M.HammM. E., Cooperative Learning. Critical Thinking and Collaboration across the Curriculum, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, Illinois, 1990.
10.
PerryW., Cognitive and Ethical Growth, in The Modem American College, ChickeringA. (eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 76–116, 1981.
11.
LeemanR. W., Taking Perspectives: Teaching Critical Thinking in the Argumentation Course, Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 147, 1987.
12.
PerkinsD. N., Postprimary Education Has Little Impact on Informal Reasoning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 77:5, pp. 562–571, 1985.
13.
McCannT. M., Student Argumentative Writing Knowledge and Ability at Three Grade Levels, Research in the Teaching of English, 23:1, pp. 62–76, 1989.
14.
KingP. M.WoodP. K.MinesR. A., Critical Thinking among College and Graduate Students, The Review of Higher Education, 13:2, pp. 167–186, 1990.
15.
VossJ. F.BlaisJ.MeansM. L.GreeneT. R.AhweshE., Informal Reasoning and Subject Matter Knowledge in the Solving of Economics Problems by Naive and Novice Individuals, Cognition and Instruction, 3:4, pp. 269–302, 1986.
16.
MarttunenM., Assessing Argumentation Skills among Finnish University Students, Learning and Instruction, 4:2, pp. 175–191, 1994.
17.
FurlongP. R., Personal Factors Influencing Informal Reasoning of Economic Issues and the Effect of Specific Instructions, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85:1, pp. 171–181, 1993.
18.
PerkinsD. N.SalomonG., Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound?, Educational Researcher, 18:1, pp. 16–25, 1989.
19.
Yli-LuomaP. V., Predictors of Critical Thinking Abilities. A Rasch-Model Approach, University of Helsinki, Department of Education, Research Bulletin 81, 1992.
20.
SmithD. G., College Classroom Interactions and Critical Thinking, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69:2, pp. 180–190, 1997.
21.
LittlefieldR. S., Teaching Argumentation and Debate Skills to Young Children: Bridging Theory and Practice, in Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Reconstruction and Application, Vol. III, van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR.BlairJ. A.WillardC. A. (eds.), International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, pp. 287–296, 1995.
22.
RubergL. F.MooreD. M.TaylorC. D., Student Participation, Interaction, and Regulation in a Computer-Mediated Communication Environment: A Qualitative Study, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14:3, pp. 243–268, 1996.
23.
CharltonS., Meeting Educational Needs in an Information Society. Delivering an On-Line Critical Thinking Course, in Teleteaching, Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 Third Teleteaching Conference, TeleTeaching 93, Trondheim, Norway, August 20–25, DaviesG.SamwaysB. (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 789–795, 1993.
24.
MarttunenM., Teaching Argumentation Skills in an Electronic Mail Environment, Innovations in Education and Training International, 34:3, pp. 208–218, 1997.
25.
SteinbergE. R., The Potential of Computer-Based Telecommunications for Instruction, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19:2, pp. 42–46, 1992.
26.
BoydG., Emancipative Educational Technology, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24:16, pp. 167–172, 1987.
27.
HarasimL. M., Online Education: An Environment for Collaboration and Intellectual Amplification, in Online Education. Perspectives on a New Environment, HarasimL. (ed.), Praeger, New York, pp. 39–64, 1990.
28.
HiltzS. R., Correlates of Learning in a Virtual Classroom, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, pp. 71–98, 1993.
29.
KonttinenR.SajavaaraK., Towards an Electronic Campus—Utopia or Reality, Life and Education in Finland, 1:1, pp. 48–54, 1990.
30.
PaulsenM., From Bulletin Boards to Electronic Universities. Distance Education, Computer-Mediated Communication, and Online Education, The American Center for the Study of Distance Education, The Pennsylvania State University, Research Monographs 7, 1992.
31.
NewmanD. R.JohnsonC.CochraneC.WebbB., An Experiment in Group Learning Technology: Evaluating Critical Thinking in Face-to-Face and Computer Supported Seminars, Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 4:1, pp. 57–74, 1996.
32.
AhernT. C.PeckK.LaycockM., The Effects of Teacher Discourse in Computer Mediated Discussion, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8:3, pp. 291–309, 1992.
33.
KonttinenR.MarttunenM., Argumentation and Learning in Computer-Mediated Communication among University Students, paper presented at the Fourth European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Turku, Finland, August 24–28, 1991.
34.
BroadyD., Piilo-opetussunnitelma (The Hidden Curriculum), Vastapaino, Tampere, 1986.
35.
TakalaT., Kasvatussosiologian Perusteet (Basics of Educational Sociology), University of Jyväskylä, Continuing Education Centre, Learning Materials 4, 1989.
36.
BretzR., Media for Interactive Communication, Sage, London, 1983.
37.
HenriF., Computer Conferencing and Content Analysis, in Collaborative Learning through Computer Conference, KayeA. (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 117–136, 1992.
38.
AnderbergM., Cluster Analysis for Applications, Academic Press, New York, 1973.
39.
GoodmanL. A., A Brief Guide to the Causal Analysis of Data from Surveys, American Journal of Sociology, 84:5, pp. 1078–1095, 1979.
40.
TerenziniP. T.SpringerL.PascarellaE. T.NoraA., Influences Affecting the Development of Students' Critical Thinking Skills, Research in Higher Education, 36:1, pp. 23–39, 1995.
41.
MarttunenM., Electronic Mail as a Pedagogical Delivery System: An Analysis of the Learning of Argumentation, Research in Higher Education, 38:3, pp. 345–363, 1997.
42.
StewartJ.McCormackC., Experiencing and Supporting Change: From Lecture to Interactive Groupwork, Teaching in Higher Education, 2:2, pp. 167–180, 1997.
43.
ZirkinB. G.SumlerD. E., Interactive or Non-Interactive? That is the Question!!! An Annotated Bibliography, Journal of Distance Education, 10:1, pp. 95–112, 1995.
44.
MeyersC., Teaching Students to Think Critically, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1986.
45.
SimonsP. R. J., Constructive Learning: The Role of the Learner, in Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, DuffyT. M.LowyckJ.JonassenD. H. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 291–313, 1993.
46.
von WrightJ., Oppimisen Tutkimuksen Opetukselle Asettamia Haasteita (Constructivism, Learning Research, and Challenges to Teaching), Kasvatus (The Finnish Journal of Education), 27:1, pp. 9–21, 1996.
