Search

The purpose of this study was to examine the learning process exhibited in restrained online debates in terms of to what extent each of Bloom’s six levels of cognitive learning were exhibited among four types of message (argument, critique, evidence, and explanation). Thirty-three graduate students enrolled in an online entry-level course in distance learning participated in this study. The threaded discussion postings from four structured online debates were analyzed. The results indicated that five of the six levels of cognitive learning (except for knowledge learning) were achieved to a certain extent among the four types of postings. Chi square tests indicated that higher levels of learning were most likely to be exhibited in critique and argument postings. Message–response exchanges ending with critiques or starting with argument messages were most likely to elicit higher levels responses. The results were discussed in light of better understanding of student learning and implications for instructional designs of discussion topics and restraints.

This study examined some of the methodological approaches used by students to construct causal maps in order to determine which approaches help students understand the underlying causes and causal mechanisms in a complex system. This study tested the relationship between causal understanding (ratio of root causes correctly/incorrectly identified, number of correctly identified root-cause links explaining how root causes directly/indirectly impact final outcomes) and three attributes observed in students’ causal maps (total links, temporal flow, lateral position of final outcome) that students produced before and after online discussions on noted similarities and differences between students’ causal maps. The findings suggest that: (a) causal understanding can be adversely affected if students are instructed before group discussion to temporally sequence nodes to flow from left to right and to position the outcome node farther away from the left edge of the map relative to other nodes in the map; (b) causal understanding following group discussion can be increased by instructing students to minimize the number of causal links and create a map with temporally flow; (c) promoting temporal flow following discussion may be the most effective means of helping students to identify root causes; and (d) instructing students to minimize the number of links following discussion may be the most effective means to helping students explain root causes directly/indirectly impact outcomes. These findings provide insights on what processes and constraints can be formalized and integrated into causal mapping software when used as an instructional and assessment tool.

In this study we examined response patterns in exchanges between males and females and their effects on gender participation in five online debates. Students classified messages into arguments, evidence, critiques, and elaborations while posting messages to the debates to facilitate argumentation and the sequential analysis of message-response sequences. The findings revealed no differences in number of critiques posted in response to arguments because females were just as likely as males to critique messages from both males and females, and because females responded to males with critiques at a higher than expected frequency. Posthoc analysis revealed strong indications that females posted fewer rebuttals to the critiques of females than males, and males posted more rebuttals to the critiques of females than females. The methods used in this study illustrate a process-oriented approach to explain and predict gender differences in participation and serve as a framework for future research on gender participation, group interaction, and strategies for facilitating collaborative argumentation and problem solving.

This study examined the effects of conversational language (e.g., asking questions, inviting replies, acknowledgments, referencing others by name, closing signatures, ‘I agree, but’, greetings, etc.) on the frequency and types of responses posted in reply to given types of messages (e.g., argument, evidence, critique, explanation), and how the resulting response patterns support and inhibit collaborative argumentation in asynchronous online discussions. Using event sequence analysis to analyze message-response exchanges in eight online group debates, this study found that (a) arguments elicited 41% more challenges when presented with more conversational language (effect size .32), (b) challenges with more conversational language elicited three to eight times more explanations (effect size .12 to .31), and (c) the number of supporting evidence elicited by challenges was not significantly different from challenges that used more versus less conversational language. Overall, these and other findings from exploratory post-hoc tests show that conversational language can help to produce patterns of interaction that foster high levels of critical discourse, and that some forms of conversational language are more effective in eliciting responses than others.

A long-term instructional experiment assessed the cognitive consequences of reflective teaching practices, compared to inquiry teaching practices, on the acquisition and transfer of Logo computer programming for 2nd- and 5th-grade students. Inquiry teaching represented previous "best practices" in which teachers elicited predictions, asked leading questions, and assisted students when they encountered programming impasses. Reflective teaching modified inquiry teaching by explicit encouragement of a design stance where students assumed roles as potential designers of Logo as well as actual roles as the designers of their own programs for peer audiences. Other tools for reflection included writing summaries of their programming experiences, using programming templates, and working with "microworlds" that helped students objectify their experiences with Logo. Multiple levels (syntactic, semantic, schematic, strategic, and beliefs) of Logo knowledge were measured during and after instruction. Between-group di...

In this chapter, we describe our research and development efforts relating to eliciting, representing, and analyzing how individuals and small groups conceptualize complex problems. The methods described herein have all been developed and are in various states of being validated. In addition, the methods we describe have been automated and most have been integrated in an online model-based set of tools called HIMATT (Highly Interactive Model-based Assessment Tools and Technologies; available for research purposes at http://himatt.ezw.uni-freiburg.de/cgi-bin/hrun/himatt.pl and soon to be available on a server at Florida State University). HIMATT continues to expand in terms of the tools and technologies included. Our methods and tools represent an approach to learning and instruction that is now embedded in many of the graduate courses at Florida State University and also at the University of Freiburg. We call our approach model-based because it integrates representations of mental models and internal cognitive processes with tools that are used to (a) assess progress of learning, and (b) provide the basis for informative and reflective feedback during instruction.

This study tested the effects of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers on the number and types of replies elicited per argument and per challenge posted in online debates. To facilitate collaborative argumentation, thirty-two students (22 females, 10 males) enrolled in a graduate-level online course classified and labeled their messages as arguments, challenges, supporting evidence, or explanations prior to posting each message. The findings showed that qualified arguments elicited 41 percent fewer replies (effect size = -.64), and the reduction in replies was greatest when qualified arguments were presented by females than males. Challenges without qualifiers, however, did not elicit more replies than challenges with qualifiers. These findings suggest that qualifiers were used to hedge arguments, and such behaviors should be discouraged during initial stages of identifying arguments (more so in all-female than in all-male groups) in order to elicit more diverse and more opposing viewpoints needed to thoroughly and critically analyze arguments. Keywords: Computer-mediated communication, CMC, communication style, group interaction patterns, interaction analysis, computer-supported collaborative learning, CSCL, collaborative argumentation.