1887
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study clarifies whether a specific type of role play supports upper secondary school students’ collaborative argumentation. Data consist of 12 dyadic face-to-face and 12 chat debates. Data analysis focused on the quality of students’ argumentation. Comparisons were made between students who defended standpoints at variance with their personal opinions on the topics, between the two study modes and topics, and by gender. When the students defended a standpoint differing from their personal opinion, the male students engaged in counterargumentation more often than the female students. When, in turn, the students defended their personal standpoint, they produced both counterargumentative and non-argumentative speech turns equally often, and their arguments were more poorly elaborated than when they defended an assigned standpoint. The study suggests that role play in which both counterargumentation and students’ personal standpoints on an issue are taken into account is a viable means to support students’ high quality argumentation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17015.sal
2018-05-07
2019-08-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andriessen, Jerry , Michael Baker and Dan Suthers
    2003 “Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions.” InArguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. by Jerry Andriessen , Michael Baker and Dan Suthers , 1–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑0781‑7_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andriessen, Jerry , Michael Baker and Chiel van der Puil
    2011 “Socio-Cognitive Tensions in Collaborative Working Relations.” InLearning across sites: new tools, infrastructures and practices, ed. by Sten Ludvigsen , Andreas Lund , Ingvill Rasmussen and Roger Säljo , 222–242. London: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andriessen, Jerry and Baruch Schwarz
    2009 “Argumentative Design.” InArgumentation and learning. Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by Nathalie Muller Mirza and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont , 145–174. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arvaja, Maarit , Helena Rasku-Puttonen , Päivi Häkkinen and Anneli Eteläpelto
    2003 “Constructing Knowledge Through a Role-Play in a Web-based Learning Environment.” Journal of Educational Computing Research28 (4): 319–341. doi: 10.2190/4FAV‑EK1T‑XV4H‑YNXF
    https://doi.org/10.2190/4FAV-EK1T-XV4H-YNXF [Google Scholar]
  5. Asterhan, Christa S. C. and Baruch B. Schwarz
    2009 “Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications from Protocol Analyses of Peer-to-Peer Dialog.” Cognitive Science33: 374–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01017.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Asterhan, Christa S. C. , Baruch B. Schwarz and Julia Gil
    2012 “Small-Group, Computer-Mediated Argumentation in Middle-School Classrooms: The Effects of Gender and Different Types of Online Teacher Guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology82: 375–397. doi: 10.1111/j.2044‑8279.2011.02030.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02030.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker, Michael , Jerry Andriessen and Sanna Järvelä
    2013 “Introduction: visions of learning together.” InAffective Learning Together: Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning, ed. by Michael Baker , Jerry Andriessen and Sanna Järvelä , 1–30. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker, Michael , Jerry Andriessen , Kristine Lund , Marije van Amelsvoort and Matthieu Quignard
    2007 “Rainbow: A Framework for Analysing Computer-Mediated Pedagogical Debates.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning2 (2–3): 315–357. doi: 10.1007/s11412‑007‑9022‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, Michael , Matthieu Quignard , Kristine Lund and Marije van Amelsvoort
    2002 “Designing a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Situation for Broadening and Deepening Understanding of the Space of Debate.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation , Amsterdam, June 2002: 55–61. Amsterdam: Sic Sat Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ben-Ze’ev, Aaron
    1995 “Emotions and Argumentation.” Informal Logic17 (2): 189–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Burnett, Cathy
    2003 “Learning to Chat: Tutor Participation in Synchronous Online Chat.” Teaching in Higher Education8: 247–261. doi: 10.1080/1356251032000052474
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052474 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carr, Tony , Lenda Cox , Andrea Eden and Monique Hanslo
    2004 ”From Peripheral to Full Participation in a Blended Trade Bargaining Simulation.” British Journal of Educational Technology35 (2): 197–211. doi: 10.1111/j.0007‑1013.2004.00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00381.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Chi, Michelene T. H. , Miriam Bassok , Matthew W. Lewis , Peter Reimann and Robert Glaser
    1989 “Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems.” Cognitive Science13 (2): 145–182. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chinn, Clark A.
    2006 “Learning to Argue.” InCollaborative learning, reasoning, and technology, ed. by Angela M. O’Donnell , Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver and Gijsbert Erkens , 355–383. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chinn, Clark A. and Douglas B. Clark
    2013 “Learning through Collaborative Argumentation.” InThe international handbook of collaborative learning, ed. by Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver , Clark A. Chinn , Carol K. K. Chan and Angela M. O’Donnell , 314–332. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Davidson, Debra J. and Wiluam R. Freudenburg
    1996 “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environment and Behavior, 28: 302–339. doi: 10.1177/0013916596283003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003 [Google Scholar]
  17. de Vries, Erica , Kristine Lund and Michael Baker
    2002 “Computer-Mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences11 (1): 63–103. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dillenbourg, Pierre and Mireille Bétrancourt
    2006 “Collaboration Load.” InHandling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory, ed. by Jan Elen and Richard Edward Clark , 142–163. Amsterdam, The Netherslands: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dillenbourg, Pierre and Daniel Schneider
    1995 “Collaborative Learning and the Internet.” ICCAI 95 1995 Retrieved fromtecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html.
  20. Epstein, Seymour
    2003 “Cognitive-Experiential Self Theory of Personality.” InHandbook of psychology: Vol 5. Personality and social psychology, ed. by Theodore Millon and Melvin J. Lerner , 159–184. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei0507
    https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0507 [Google Scholar]
  21. Erkens, Gijsbert and Jeroen Janssen
    2008 “Automatic Coding of Dialogue Acts in Collaboration Protocols.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning3 (4): 447–470. doi: 10.1007/s11412‑008‑9052‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9052-6 [Google Scholar]
  22. Golder, Caroline and Delphine Pouit
    1999 “For a Debate to Take Place the Topic Must Be Debatable.” InFoundations of argumentative text processing, ed. by Jerry Andriessen and Pierre Coirier , 137–148. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Guiller, Jane , Alan Durndell, A. and Anne Ross
    2008 “Peer Interaction and Critical Thinking: Face-to-Face or Online Discussion?” Learning and Instruction18: 187–200. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Holsbrink-Engels, Geralien
    2001 “Using a Computer Learning Environment for Initial Training in Dealing with Social-Communicative Problems.” British Journal of Educational Technology32 (1): 53–67. doi: 10.1111/1467‑8535.00176
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00176 [Google Scholar]
  25. Iordanou, Kalypso
    2013 “Developing Face-to-Face Argumentation Skills: Does Arguing on the Computer Help?” Journal of Cognition and Development14 (2): 292–320. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2012.668732
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.668732 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jeong, Allan
    2006 “Gender Interaction Patterns and Gender Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation.” The American Journal of Distance Education20 (4): 195–210. doi: 10.1207/s15389286ajde2004_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2004_2 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2007 “The Effects of Intellectual Openness and Gender on Critical Thinking Processes in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation.” Distance Education22 (1): 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jeong, Allan and Gayle Davidson-Shivers
    2006 “The Effects of Gender Interaction Patterns on Student Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation.” Educational Technology, Research, and Development54: 543–568. doi: 10.1007/s11423‑006‑0636‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0636-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kennedy, John J.
    1988 “Applying Log-Linear Models in Educational Research.” Australian Journal of Education32 (1): 3–24. doi: 10.1177/000494418803200101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418803200101 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kolstoe, Stein D.
    2000 “Consensus Projects: Teaching Science for Citizenship.” International Journal of Science Education22: 645–664. doi: 10.1080/095006900289714
    https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289714 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kuhn, Deanna , Victoria Shaw and Mark Felton
    1997 “Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentative Reasoning.” Cognition and Instruction15: 287–315. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuhn, Deanna and Wadiya Udell
    2007 “Coordinating Own and Other Perspectives in Argument.” Thinking and Reasoning13 (2): 90–104. doi: 10.1080/13546780600625447
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447 [Google Scholar]
  33. Larson, Meredith , M. Anne Britt and Aaron A. Larson
    2004 “Disfluencies in Comprehending Argumentative Texts.” Reading Psychology25: 205–224. doi: 10.1080/02702710490489908
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490489908 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lim, Mei Y. , Karin Leichtenstern , Michael Kriegel , Sibylle Enz , Ruth Aylett , Natalie Vannini , Lynne Hall and Paola Rizzo
    2011 “Technology-Enhanced Role-Play for Social and Emotional Learning Context – Intercultural Empathy.” Entertainment Computing2: 223–231. doi: 10.1016/j.entcom.2011.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2011.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Marttunen, Miika
    1997Studying Argumentation in Higher Education By Electronic Mail. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 127. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Marttunen, Miika and Leena Laurinen
    2001 ”Promoting Argumentation Skills in University: Comparing E-Mail and Face-to-Face Studies.” InHuman-centered technology and learning, ed. by Hannakaisa Isomäki , Jouko Kari , Miika Marttunen , Antti Pirhonen and Jyrki Suomala , 17–53. University of Jyväskylä. Department of Teacher Education. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2002 ”Quality of Students’ Argumentation by E-Mail.” Learning Environments Research5: 99–123. doi: 10.1023/A:1015666724692
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015666724692 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marttunen, Miika , Leeena Laurinen , Lia Litosseliti and Kristine Lund
    2005 ”Argumentation Skills as Prerequisites for Collaborative Learning Among Finnish, French, and English Secondary School Students.” Educational Research and Evaluation11 (4): 365–384. doi: 10.1080/13803610500110588
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500110588 [Google Scholar]
  39. McCrudden, Matthew and Phillip Sparks
    2014 “Exploring the Effect of Task Instructions on Topic Beliefs and Topic Belief Justifications: A Mixed Methods Study.” Contemporary Educational Psychology39: 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Moerbeek, Hester and Gerda Casimir
    2005 “Gender Differences in Consumers’ Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods.” International Journal of Consumer Studies29 (4): 308–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1470‑6431.2005.00441.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00441.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Morgan, Wendy and Glenn Beaumont
    2003 “A Dialogic Approach to Argumentation: Using a Chat Room to Develop Early Adolescent Students’ Argumentative Writing.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy47 (2): 146–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Muller Mirza, Nathalie , Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont , Valérie Tartas and Antonio Iannaccone
    2009 “Psychosocial Processes in Argumentation.” InArgumentation and learning. Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by Nathalie Muller Mirza and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont , 67–90. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Noroozi, Omid , Armin Weinberger , Harm J. A. Biemans , Martin Mulder and Mohammad Chizari
    2012 “Argumentation-based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A Synthesis of 15 Years of Research.” Educational Research Review7 (2): 79–106. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Connor, Sue and Anne Ross
    2004 “WebCT Role-Playing: Immediacy Versus E-Mediacy in Learning Environments.” Learning Environments Research7: 183–201. doi: 10.1023/B:LERI.0000037199.30538.89
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LERI.0000037199.30538.89 [Google Scholar]
  45. Perkins, David N.
    1985 “Postprimary Education Has Little Impact on Informal Reasoning.” Journal of Educational Psychology77: 562–571. Retrieved fromsearch.proquest.com/docview/614285539?accountid=11774
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Prinsen, Fleur R. , Monique L. L. Volman and Jan Terwel
    2007 “Gender-Related Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication and Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning23: 393–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑2729.2007.00224.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00224.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Robertson, Olivia , Jim Hewitt and Marlene Scardamalia, M.
    2003Gender participation patterns in Knowledge Forum: an analysis of two graduate-level classes. Poster presented at theIKIT Summer Institute 2003, Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Salminen, Timo , Miika Marttunen and Leena Laurinen
    2010 ”Visualising Knowledge From Chat Debates in Argument Diagrams.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning26 (5): 379–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑2729.2010.00354.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00354.x [Google Scholar]
  49. 2012 ”Argumentation in Secondary School Students’ Structured and Unstructured Chat Discussions.” Journal of Educational Computing Research47 (2): 175–208. doi: 10.2190/EC.47.2.d
    https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.2.d [Google Scholar]
  50. Scheuer, Oliver , Frank Loll , Niels Pinkwart and Bruce M. McLaren
    2010 “Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State of the Art.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning5 (1): 43–102. doi: 10.1007/s11412‑009‑9080‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x [Google Scholar]
  51. Schwarz, Baruch B.
    2009 “Argumentation and Learning.” InArgumentation and learning. Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by Nathalie Muller Mirza and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont , 91–126. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schweizer, Karin , Manuela Paechter and Bernd Weidenmann
    2003 “Blended Learning as a Strategy to Improve Collaborative Task Performance.” Journal of Educational media28 (2–3): 211–224. doi: 10.1080/1358165032000165699
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165032000165699 [Google Scholar]
  53. Simonneaux, Laurence
    2001 “Role-Play or Debate to Promote Students’ Argumentation and Justification on an Issue in Animal Transgenesis.” International Journal of Science Education23 (9): 903–927. doi: 10.1080/09500690010016076
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016076 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sladek, Ruth M. , Malcolm J. Bond and Paddy A. Phillips
    2010 “Age and Gender Differences in Preferences for Rational and Experiential Thinking.” Personality and Individual Differences49: 907–911. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.028
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.028 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stein, Nancy L. and Elizabeth R. Albro
    2001 “The Origin and Nature of Arguments: Studies in Conflict Understanding, Emotion, and Negotiation.” Discourse Processes32 (2–3): 113–133. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651594
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651594 [Google Scholar]
  56. Stein, Nancy L. and Ronan Bernas
    1999 “The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill.” InFoundations of argumentative text processing, ed. by Jerry Andriessen and Pierre Coirier , 97–116. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sweller, John , Jeroen van Merriënboer and Fred Paas
    1998 “Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design.” Educational Psychology Review10: 251–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205 [Google Scholar]
  58. Toplak, Maggie E. and Keith E. Stanovich
    2003 “Associations Between Myside Bias on an Informal Reasoning Task and Amount of Post-Secondary Education.” Applied Cognitive Psychology17: 851–860. doi: 10.1002/acp.915
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.915 [Google Scholar]
  59. Udell, Wadiya
    2007 “Enhancing Adolescent Girls’ Argument Skills in Reasoning About Personal and Non-Personal Decisions.” Cognitive Development22: 341–352. Retrieved fromwww.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08852014/22/3
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Uitto, Anna , Kalle Juuti , Jari Lavonen , Reijo Byman and Veijo Meisalo
    2011 ”Secondary School Students’ Interests, Attitudes and Values Concerning School Science Related to Environmental Issues in Finland.” Environmental Education Research17 (2): 167–186. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2010.522703
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.522703 [Google Scholar]
  61. van Bruggen, Jan M. , Paul A. Kirschner and Wim Jochems
    2002 “External Representation of Argumentation in CSCL and the Management of Cognitive Load.” Learning and Instruction12 (1): 121–138. doi: 10.1016/S0959‑4752(01)00019‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00019-6 [Google Scholar]
  62. Veerman, Arja
    2000Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Through Argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Vincent, Andrew and John Shepherd
    1998 “Experiences in Teaching Middle East Politics via Internet-based Role-Play Simulations. Journal of Interactive Media in Education98 (11). Retrieved fromwww-jime.open.ac.uk/98/11/10.5334/1998‑11
    https://doi.org/10.5334/1998-11 [Google Scholar]
  64. Walton, Douglas N.
    1989 “Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking.” Argumentation3, 169–184. doi: 10.1007/BF00128147
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128147 [Google Scholar]
  65. Webb, Noreen M.
    1989 “Peer Interaction and Learning in Small Groups.” International Journal of Education Research13: 21–39. doi: 10.1016/0883‑0355(89)90014‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1 [Google Scholar]
  66. Yardley-Matwiejczuk, Krysia M.
    1997Role Play: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Zeidler, Dana L. , Troy D. Sadler , Scott Applebaum and Brendan E. Callahan
    2009 “Advancing Reflective Judgment Through Socioscientific Issues.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching46: 74–101. doi: 10.1002/tea.20281
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281 [Google Scholar]
  68. Zelezny, Lynnette C. , Poh-Pheng Chua and Christina Aldrich
    2000 “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues56 (3): 443–457. doi: 10.1111/0022‑4537.00177
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zohar, Anat and Flora Nemet
    2002 “Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills Through Dilemmas in Human Genetics.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching39: 35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17015.sal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17015.sal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation , collaborative learning , computer chat , role play , standpoint and upper secondary school
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error