Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation Jeroen Janssen Gijsbert

Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation Jeroen Janssen, Gijsbert Erkens, Jos Jaspers & Gellof Kanselaar Research Centre Learning in Interaction Utrecht University, The Netherlands 7 th International Conference of the Learning Sciences Bloomington, Indiana June 27 – July 1, 2006 Project number 411 -02 -121

Overview of the presentation • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) • Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning • Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? • Research Questions and Method • Results • Conclusion & Discussion

Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) • Electronic learning environment that facilitates collaborative learning (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003). • Supports exchange and sharing of information. • Computer-mediated communication (CMC). • Positive expectations: combination of collaborative learning and ICT. • But also problems during CSCL (e. g. , Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Hobman, Bordia, Irmer, & Chang, 2002; Lipponen et al. , 2003). • Conflicts • Communication problems • Low participation and unequal participation (free riders)

Overview of the presentation • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) • Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning • Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? • Research Questions and Method • Results • Conclusion & Discussion

Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning (1) • • Virtual Collaborative Research Institute = VCRI. Groupware, tools are shared by group members. Research tasks, inquiry tasks. Communication is synchronously (chat) and asynchronously (forum). • Several different tools (sources, shared text processor). • Separate tool for teachers.

Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning (2) Teacher Students

Overview of the presentation • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) • Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning • Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? • Research Questions and Method • Results • Conclusion & Discussion

Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? (1) • Problem: Low participation of group members and unequal participation among group members. • Solution: Participation tool • What does it do? Visualizing how much each group member relatively contributes to the online group discussion.

Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? (2) Participation tool

Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? (3) Distance: Size: Group Students Length of students Number of theofmessages

Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? (4) • Why would visualization of participation be helpful for CSCL? 1. Makes contribution of group members to online discussion identifiable (Jermann, 2004). 2. May enhance motivation to participate (Shepperd, 1993). 3. May raise awareness of group processes and activities (Kirschner et al, 2004). 4. Can be used to evaluate and discuss group processes / engage in group processing (Yager et al, 1986).

Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? (5) • Research results: Students with access to the Participation tool… 1. … participated more during online collaboration. 2. … reported higher awareness of group processes. 3. … engaged more in the coordination and regulation of their collaboration. 4. … were less off-task (Janssen, Erkens, Kanselaar, & Jaspers, in press).

Overview of the presentation • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) • Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning • Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? • Research Questions and Method • Results • Conclusion & Discussion

Research questions and Method (1) • Unanswered question: Participation is increased, but does this also mean the quality of collaboration and argumentation is increased? • The importance of argumentative knowledge construction: It helps students to expand deepen their knowledge (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006)

Research questions and Method (2) • Posttest-only design with treatment (n=52) and control group (n=17). • 17 groups with access to the Participation tool, 5 groups without access. • Pre-university, secondary education students (+/- 16 years). • Course: History. • Group task: Inquiry task about witchcraft and the persecution of witches in the 16 th and 17 th century. • Duration: 8 lessons in 4 weeks.

Overview of the presentation • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) • Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning • Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? • Research Questions and Method • Results • Conclusion & Discussion

Results: Use of argumentation (1) • Question: Do students with access to the Participation tool use more argumentative dialogue acts? • Instrument: Automated analysis of students’ dialogue acts. • 29 dialogue acts: argumentative, elicitative, responsive, informative, and imperative. • 7 different argumentative dialogue acts: 1. Argument 2. Argument 3. Argument 4. Argument 5. Argument 6. Argument 7. Argument – Reason – Counter – Conditional – Then – Disjunctive – Conclusion - Elaboration

Results: Use of argumentation (2) Treatment group (N = 52) Control group (N = 17) M M SD Argument Freq. (%) Reason Counter 7. 10 (2. 24) 6. 00 12. 85 (4. 19) 10. 57 Freq. SD (%) Conditional 4. 46 (1. 42) 4. 11 4. 76 (2. 01) 4. 12 7. 71 (3. 18) 4. 58 1. 94 (. 08) 1. 48 Then 5. 69 (1. 90) 4. 19 (. 40) 1. 84 3. 94 (1. 59) 3. 91. 47 (. 22). 62 Disjunctive Conclusion 1. 37 7. 38 Elaboration 9. 29 p <. 05 (2. 31) 7. 56 (2. 67) 9. 13 4. 59 (1. 87) 4. 27 6. 06 (2. 60) 3. 60

Results: Sequences of argumentation • Question: Do groups with access to the Participation tool engage in longer sequences of argumentation? • Analysis of the length of the sequences of argumentation found in the online collaboration. • Sequences of two, three, four, or five arguments. With access to the PT (N = 17) Without access to the PT (N = 5) M SD Five arguments . 13 . 20 Four arguments . 31 . 35 . 05. 11 . 09. 15 . 97 . 62 . 50 . 23 5. 53 2. 04 3. 52 1. 30 Three arguments Two arguments p <. 05

Results: Group performance • Question: Do groups with access to the Participation tool perform better on the inquiry group task? • Instrument: Assessment form which assessed quality of essays written by the groups. Treatment groups (N = 17) M SD Control groups (N = 5) M SD Total score - Subtask 1 66. 47 1. 37 10. 66. 33 64. 80 1. 47 8. 70. 18 - Subtask 2 1. 38 . 32 1. 14 . 20 - Subtask 3 1. 27 . 34 1. 47 . 27 - Subtask 4 1. 39 . 36 1. 49 . 26 - Subtask 5 1. 39 . 30 1. 27 . 15 - Subtask 6 - Subtask 7 1. 42 . 24 1. 20 . 24 1. 51 . 37 1. 40 . 45 p =. 14; ES =. 80 p =. 09; ES =. 92

Results: Successful vs. less successful groups (1) • Question: Do successful groups engage in different argumentation patterns compared to less successful groups? • Method: Lag sequential analysis and transitions diagrams of the five most and five least successful groups. • Transition diagrams show which transitions occur more frequently than would be expected.

Results: Successful vs. less successful groups (2) Most successful Least successful

Overview of the presentation • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) • Research context: CSCL and inquiry learning • Visualization of participation: Why? How? What? • Research Questions and Method • Results • Conclusion & Discussion

Conclusion • Participation tool had a small effect on students’ use of argumentative dialogue acts (conditional arguments). • Participation tool stimulated groups to engage in slightly longer sequences of argumentation. • Participation tool had no effect on group performance. • Argumentation patterns were different for successful versus unsuccessful groups.

Discussion • Students were not forced to use the Participation tool. • Participation tool may focus students more on other characteristics of collaboration. Other tools may enhance quality of argumentation more directly (e. g. , argumentation scripts). • Types of arguments (reasons, counter arguments, etc. ) were examined: is the same as quality of argumentation? • Attempt at going “beyond averages” and “beyond coding and counting” (Chinn, 2006; Hmelo-Silver, 2006).

The End • E-mail: j. j. h. m. janssen@fss. uu. nl & g. erkens@fss. uu. nl • URL: http: //edugate. fss. uu. nl/~crocicl/ • Janssen, Erkens, Kanselaar, & Jaspers (in press). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education. • Janssen, Erkens, & Kanselaar (submitted). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer -supported collaborative learning.

See you at ICLS 2008 in Utrecht, The Netherlands!