Many consider rich argumentation to be the core of quality discussions and view it as a vehicle to solving problems and clarifying content. This study examined the influence of a discussion leader intervention on the quality of online argumentation and interactivity. Subjects were 44 undergraduate students who participated in online discussions on a technology issue over two weeks. Participants who received pre-determined instructions from the leader prior to the issue discussion were more likely to produce enriched argumentation and increased interaction than the control participants who did not receive specific instructions prior to the issue discussion. Results indicated that students participating in groups receiving specific argumentation instructions from the leader produced better online argumentation for the second week and exhibited increased interactivity patterns for both weeks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbedutoL. (2000). Should schools embrace computers and technology? Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in educational psychology (2nd ed.). Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
2.
AlexopoulouE., & DriverR. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099.
3.
AndriessenJ.BakerM., & ShutersD. (2003). Arguing to learn.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4.
AndriessenJ., & CoirierP. (1999). Foundations of argumentative text processing.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
5.
BendixenL. D.HartleyK.SasI. C., & SpatariuA. (2003, April). The impact of epistemic beliefs and metacognition on online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
6.
BruggenJ. M., & KirschnerP. A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In AdriessenJ.BakerM., & SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–205). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
7.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E., & KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.
8.
CoirierP.AndriessenJ., & LucilleC. (1999). From planning to translating the specificity of argumentative writing. In AndriessenJ. & CoirierP. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
9.
ErkensG. (1997). Cooperative problem solving with computers in education. In AndriessenJ. & CoirierP. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 204–207). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
10.
GolderC., & PouitD. (1999). For a debate to take place the theme must be discussible: Developmental evolution of the negotiation and admissibility of the arguments. In AndriessenJ. & CoirierP. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 137–148). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
11.
JeongA. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36–53.
12.
JeongA., & JoungS. (2003). The effects of response constraints and message labels on interaction patterns and argumentation in online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved August 21, 2005, from: http://dev22448–01.sp01.fsu.edu/Research/Labeling/Fall2002/AERAProposalScaffolding.pdf.
13.
LangilleL., & PelletierJ. (2003). Collaborative electronic discussion groups: Using cognotes to create accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Atlanta, GA.
14.
MartunnenM. (1998). Electronic mail as a form for argumentative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Computing Research, 18, 387–405.
15.
NussbaumE. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 286–313.
16.
NussbaumE. M.HartleyK.SinatraG. M.ReynoldsR. E., & BendixenL. (2002, April). Enhancing the quality of online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
17.
OrmrodJ. E. (2005). Educational psychology (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
18.
PilkingtonR. M., & WalkerS. A. (2003). Using CMC to develop argumentation skills in children with a literacy deficit. In AdriessenJ.BakerM., & SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 144–175). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
19.
PoscenteR., & FahyJ. (2003). Investigating triggers in CMC transcripts. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved July 25, from: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v4.2/poscente_fahy.html.
20.
RoseM. A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and collaborative. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 73–88.
21.
SchaefferE. L.McGradyJ. A.BhargavaT., & EngelC. (2002, April). Online debate to encourage peer interactions in the large lecture setting: Coding and analysis of forum activity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
22.
SchrawG.BendixenL. D., & DunkleM. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In HoferB. K. & PintrichP. R. (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
SteinN. L., & MillerC. A. (1990). I win-You lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In VossJ.PerkinsD., & SegalJ. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 265–290). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24.
The Sloan Consortium. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from: http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/survey.asp.
25.
VeermanA. L.AndriessenJ. E. B., & KanselaarG. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. In HoadlyC. & RoschelleJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 640–650). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
26.
VeermanA. L., & Treasure-JonesT. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In AndriessenJ. & CoirierP. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203–231). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
27.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
