Development of Design Principles of Group Awareness Tool for Facilitating Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation

Xin Zhao

doi:10.62051/ijcsit.v2n1.31

Authors

Xin Zhao

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/ijcsit.v2n1.31

Keywords:

Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation, Group Awareness, Group Awareness Tool, Interaction Among Learners

Abstract

As one of the forms of collaborative learning, collaborative argumentation can improve students’ argumentation skills, promote effective content learning and cultivate critical thinking. Especially in the field of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), such as conflicts between group members, free-riding behavior, and unequal participation occur frequently. At the same time, in the CSCL environment, it is difficult to coordinate one’s actions with other group members’ actions. These problems are mainly caused by learners who cannot obtain group awareness information about accompanying learners and the current group. Therefore, this study according to the previous research, the initial design principles and initial specific guidelines for the group awareness tool were identified. After that, three educational technology experts reviewed the initial design principles and guidelines. The modified specific guidelines were applied to the two-week classroom teaching of 45 first-year students in a class. In addition, a learners’ response survey was conducted on the students who actually participated in the computer-supported collaborative argumentation activities. Finally, the results of questionnaire surveys (n=45) and interviews (n=5) were analyzed, and the final specific guidelines were developed. According to the research results, collaborative argumentation based on group awareness tool solves the problem that general collaborative argumentation activities can’t obtain timely information on the cognitive, behavioral, and social awareness of accompanying learners and the current group study situation. It can continuously maintain their study motivation and promote interaction among learners to improve the quality of computer-supported collaborative learning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043- 1045.

Briggs, R. O. (2006). On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems. International Journal ofHuman Computer Studies, 64(7), 573-582.

Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 123- 139.

Carroll, J., Neale, D., Isenhour, P., Rosson, M., & McCrickard, S. (2003). Notifification and awareness: Synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 605–632.

Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan & A. M. O’ Donnell (Eds.). The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314-332). New York, NY: Routledge.

Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. A. (2009). Argument reconceived? Educational Review, 61(3), 301-313.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194- 197.

DiMicco, J. M., Hollenbach, K. J., Pandolfo, A., & Bender, W. (2007). The impact of increased awareness while face-to-face. Human–Computer Interaction, 22(1-2), 47-96.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.

Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted 73 Learning, 24(3), 167-180.

Gross, T., Stary, C., & Totter, A. (2005). User-centered awareness in computer-supported cooperative work-systems: Structured embedding of findings from social sciences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18(3), 323-360.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.

Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2005). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive processes and performance (pp.177-201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105- 1125.

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1037- 1065.

Jeong, J. W. (2015). The effect of rubric type for web-based simultaneous discussion on discussion process and performance. Curriculum Education Research, 19(2), 407-425.

Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 51(1), 279-296.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.). Argumentation in science education (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer.

Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2011). Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal ofEngineering Education, 100(4), 680-702.

Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35-52.

Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 85-97.

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31-42.

Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66.

Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm Shifts and Instructional Technology: An Introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of An Emerging Paradigm (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.). Distributed work (pp. 137- 162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353.

Kwon, S. (2013). Analysis of cognitive reality stage and learner participation patterns in non-real-time online discussions. Learner-Centered Curriculum Education Research, 13(4), 133- 162.

Kwon, K., Liu, Y. H., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education, 78, 185-200.

Lee, M. N., Choi, W., & Bae, J. K. (2002). A study on the effects of problem-centered learning using the Internet on economic understanding and argument ability in the process of solving social studies debate problems. Civic Education Research, 37(1), 101- 126.

Lee, S. K., & Yang, Y. C. (2009). The effect of the use of discussion outlines on the level of debater’s cognitive participation in online simultaneous discussion. Thinking Development, 5(2), 65-85.

Lee, S. Y., Park, S. H., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring the development of junior high school students’ small group norms and their ability to argue through collaborative reflection on small group argumentation activities. Korean Academy of Sciences Education, 36(6), 895-910.

Nile, J., & Jung, H. M. (2001). Development of an activity model for the development of a web-based virtual education program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 17(2), 91- 115.

Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977- 1999.

Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151- 161.

Pifarré, M., Cobos, R., & Argelagós, E. (2014). Incidence of group awareness information on students’ collaborative learning processes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 300-317.

Richey, R. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies and issues. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The Impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.

Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students ’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.

Sandoval, W. A., & & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students ’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.

Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M. A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1059- 1067.

Schmidt, K. (2002). The problem with awareness: Introductory remarks on awareness in CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3-4), 285-298.

Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1701- 1709.

Seo, H. J. (2016). The effect of online discussion learning experience on the improvement of rational communication skills. Civic Education Research, 48(1), 31-52.

Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69-86.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difﬁcult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.

Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215-226.

Walton, D. N. (2009). Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. In G. Simari & I. Rahwan (Eds.). Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1-22). Boston：Springer.

Ware, C. (2005). Visual queries: The foundation of visual thinking. In S. O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.). Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 27–35). Berlin: Springer.