The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools

Abstract

Argumentative activity has been found beneficial for construction of knowledge and evaluation of information in some conditions. Many theorists in CSCL and some empiricists have suggested that graphical representations may help in this endeavor. In the present study, we examine effects of type of ontology and of synchronicity in students that engage intuitively, without training, in e-discussions. Fifty-four Grade 7 students from two classes participated in the study. We tested the effects of using an informal argumentative ontology and control over turn taking on the average number of claims and arguments relevant to the issue at stake, the average number of different types of references to peers (productive. etc.), and on the number of chat expressions (nicknames, swear words, etc.). We found that when providing both an informal argumentative ontology and control over turn taking, students express less chat expressions and fewer references that are not new relevant claims or arguments to their peers, but express more relevant claims and arguments. These findings suggest the immediate beneficial role of the combination of an informal ontology and control over turn taking in the co-elaboration of knowledge.

Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

“…Since the mid-1990s a number of computer-based argumentation systems based on the argument diagramming paradigm have been developed for educational purposes, for instance, Belvedere (Suthers et al 1995), Reason!Able (van Gelder 2002), and Digalo (Schwarz and Glassner 2007). Such tools have been used in a variety of ways and in different domains, for instance, to analyze existing legal arguments (Pinkwart et al 2009), to outline arguments in preparation for essay writing (Erkens et al 2005;Janssen et al 2010), and to discuss a given contentious question (Schwarz and Glassner 2007;McLaren et al 2010). …”

“…In graphical e-Discussions, students post new messages by creating labeled boxes in a shared workspace (e.g., an argument, a question, a clarification), and reply to existing messages by connecting boxes through labeled arrows that denote different kinds of argumentative or rhetorical relations (e.g., for, against, relates to). Schwarz and Glassner (2007) investigated the effects of structuring graphical e-Discussions through floor control (i.e., a graphical user interface that guides turn-taking) and an informal ontology (i.e., node and link labels derived from informal conversations). The structuring led to discussions of higher quality with more relevant claims and arguments, and fewer chat-like contributions (e.g., use of profanity).…”

CSCL in Asia

“…Adopting a somewhat different take on the many factors involved, it explores issues involving the teacher role in mediating student collaborative knowledge building and conceptual change. This paper builds on previous studies in this journal by the same lab on computer support for argumentation (Asterhan and Schwarz 2010;Schwarz and De Groot 2007;Schwarz and Glassner 2007). Engaging in multiple controversies within CSCL and using various means of intervention and of analysis, the paper raises issues about how to accomplish the CSCL vision in schools through the coordinated efforts of researchers, teachers, and other stakeholders through a design-based research process similar to that in Singapore.…”

Conceptualizing the intersubjective group

“…A core component of this approach is supporting groups of students to engage in argumentation as a form of intersubjective meaning making. Schwarz and colleagues have previously published studies of CSCL support for argumentation in ijCSCL (Asterhan and Schwarz 2010;Schwarz and De Groot 2007;Schwarz and Glassner 2007;Schwarz et al 2011;Slakmon and Schwarz 2014). Now they situate computer support for argumentation in an innovative dual-interaction space.…”