Argumentative Interactions In Online Asynchronous Communication

Argumentative Interactions in Online Asynchronous
Communication
Evelina De Nardis,
University of Roma Tre,
Doctoral School in Pedagogy and Social Service, Department of Educational Science
evedenardis@yahoo.it
Abstract. Argumentative interactions in online asynchronous communication
are seldom studied by using a qualitative approach as Grounded Theory
Methods. The purpose of this paper is about a theory of argumentation based on
analysis of teacher-student and learner-learner dialogues. By examining
linguistic features of the threads related to the forum of two different academic
courses, we consider the structural aspects of argumentative interactions as
expressed in term of co-construction of Knowledge.
Keywords: computer supported collaborative learning, social and cognitive
processes, communities of learners.
1 Introduction
Researches on development of learning processes and interactions are supported by
innovative educational technologies that have caused important changes on the
mission of higher educational institutions.
Contexts with the opportunities of networking and collaborating constitute the
main features of a learner-centered framework. Inquiry and collaboration are key
processes to build argumentative interactions.
This PhD project concerns the structural aspects of argumentative interaction with
particular attention to a particular modality of asynchronous communication, forum
discussion.
The issue of argumentation has an increasing interest in education, not only
because it is an important competence that has to be learned, but also because
argumentation can be foster learning in many domains: mathematics, science, history
and literature.
The processes of argumentation allow students to emerge new understanding and
creative restructuring of problem solving. The learner becomes a co-author in
building Knowledge.
13

2 Research questions
The PhD research is framed by socio-constructivist learning theory. The following
general research questions are addressed:
1. Can grounded methods research be useful to understand theory of argumentative
interactions in a context of asynchronous communication?
2. How can collaborative learning situations support argumentation?
3. What are the contextual aspects affecting argumentation with a particular
attention to the role of student, peer student and tutor.
The aim of PhD project is to understand the nature of interactions, with particular
attention to dialogical aspects occurring during processes of elaboration and
construction of knowledge in a collaborative environment supported by asynchronous
communication.
3 Significant problems in the field of research
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (CSCLE) affect social
and cognitive aspects of construction of knowledge.
Some researchers state that in the contexts that promote process of knowledge-
building, explanation is the major constructive activity [1]. This process support
collaborative learning in all kind of processes that appear connected with knowledge
discourse with the aim to co-construct meaning.
As emerged from a certain number of studies, the learners, working in
collaborative environments, are more engaged in argumentative interactions oriented
to epistemic tasks as the solution of problem, meta-cognitive reflection and building
of consensus [2].
But, the studies tackle the problem of argumentative interaction in learning
collaborative environments in a limited way.
The indicators that examine the aspect of argumentative interactions are often
focused on quantifying interactions at fine- grained level [3].
Other researches based on user approach, focusing on quantitative methodology for
assessing the nature of argumentative interactions, concentrate only about one or two
dimensions of collaboration tasks leaving aside a more global picture of complexity
arousing from the understanding of cognitive and social aspects that constitute
argumentative interaction.
The balance of individual and collective contributions of learners is rarely
considered in the researches on investigating the nature of the complementary aspect
in the processes of building and sharing Knowledge.
A quantitative research approach doesn’t give indications for understanding how
the members of group can collaborate effectively. Ethnographic methods are more
sensitive to approach quality of collaboration on the basis of qualitative analysis.
14

4 State of the art: outline of current knowledge of the problem
Muller and Perret-Clermot [2] state that argumentation is conceived as a particular
type of communicative interaction. The action of assessing argumentative interactions
in a collaborative learning environment means building of social consensus through
negotiation and development of individual and collective level of collaboration.
Baker [4] defines argumentative interactions as contexts in which the use of
discursive operations, that is cognitive aspects of knowledge and understanding is
particularly intense and frequent. The principal discursive operation in argumentative
interactions is negotiation of meaning.
The negotiation of meaning is the most generalized of discursive operation by
which different meanings of linguistic expressions are compared and refined in verbal
interactions. An approach to understanding argumentative interaction in problem
solving situation is concerned with the choice of better solution of a problem. This
process goes hand in hand with an exploration of dialogical spaces in which
negotiation of meanings take form.
Andriessen [5] presents a case of using interactive media for supporting
collaborative argumentation in an university context. The author illustrates the
principal mechanisms underlying argumentative interaction by using computer tools
as chat and forum for generating argumentative essays.
The studies on grounding processes of argumentative interaction contribute to
gaining more insight into the mechanisms that can support dialogue in collaborative
learning environments. The grounding processes, defined as interactive, are
concerned on how mutual understanding of knowledge can be constructed and
developed [6]. These processes can occur at linguistic level as well as at cognitive
level (searching for concepts and problem-solving strategies) [7].
In collaborative research design, the processes can be classified according to the
orientation toward design task procedures, group processes or communication
process.
Firstly, collaboration concerns the activities related to evolution of task (design
activities, elaboration and enhancements of solution). These content-oriented
activities reveal how the group resolves the task by sharing and co-elaborating
knowledge concerning the resolution, by confronting participants’ different
perspectives and by converging toward negotiated solution
Secondly, collaboration concerns group management activities such as project
management and coordination activities.
Thirdly, communication processes are highly important to ensure the construction
of common ground in collaborative process by which the participants mutually
establish what they Know.
Grounding is linked to sharing of information through the representation of the
environment and the artifact. These activities ensure inter-comprehension and
construction of shared or compatible representations of the current state of problem:
solution, plans, design rules.
15

5 Research design
In PhD research we focus the attention on relation between knowledge construction
and argumentation in collaborative learning situations. The purpose of this
contribution is to present results pertaining to argumentation and learning in tasks that
explicitly stress the importance on negotiation of meaning. We consider as subject of
study, two small groups (composed by six or seven participant) of academic students
who attend the courses of Didactics and Distance Education delivered by open source
software platform Moodle. Synchronous chat and asynchronous forum are used for
discussion of project work topics to be presented to tutors, peers and teachers.
The duration of the courses is one semester.
For the Didactics course, the discussion on the forum starts from November 2008
to January 2009.
For Distance Education group the discussion starts from March 2009 to June 2009.
The design of PhD is composed by three different stages.
By the first stage, we select 30 threads of forum on Didactics composed by 420
messages and 17 threads from forum of Distance Education constituted by 459
messages.
In the choice of messages the attention is posed on unity of meaning because in
asynchronous forum, the interactions take the form of communicative acts.
A unity of meaning is defined as a coherent sentence distinguished from others
adjacent and characterized by comma or point.
Within the approach of Grounded Theory methods, data messages have been
analyzed by using three different forms of coding: open, theoretical and constant
comparative [6].
The process of coding started by defining some sensitizing concepts [7]. These
concepts are useful to indicate what to look for during research fieldwork.
The open coding ends with locating the core categories, while theoretical coding
allows to develop relationship between categories and their properties.
Step 1. The first step in the analysis of the data is the coding of selected messages.
Open coding techniques, a process of labelling the events and ideas represented in the
data, are used. The goal of open coding is to create an initial list of conceptual codes,
which are grounded in the data. Most of the data is coded using NVivo, a computer
software program for qualitative research. At each paragraph of the transcripts of
forum discussion graph is assigned one or more conceptual codes. Within grounded
theory approach, the data are analyzed without any particular preconceived notion
about descriptive labels.
Step 2. At the end of the first stage we begin looking for connections among
conceptual codes through several strategies. A set of emergent models are created
based on the codes and categories. In this stage, our intuition is guided by increasing
levels of theoretical sensitivity. Narratives and stories of participants are considered
as important as their request of information in the forum. These aspects provide a
valuable way to engage participants in member checking especially because they
reflect on their experiences.
16

Step 3: The collection and analysis of data are repeated by comparing emerging
categories with those created from the previous stages. It is “the attribute of having
insight, the ability to give meaning to data, the capacity to understand, and capability
to separate the pertinent from that which isn't” [8].
The sensitivity can be achieved by a variety of approaches including extensive
literature search in related fields of study and a series of reflections on personal and
professional experience. Any further data collection and analysis become more
selective and guided by the emerging theory in a process known as theoretical
saturation. At the end of this we reflect about the most recurrent core categories.
6 Sketch of the applied research methodology
In the field of Information System there is an increasing interest toward use of
qualitative research methods with an aim to comprehend how ICT issues are context-
sensitive. Consequently, the importance is on how the participants are supported by
technologies to share meaning.
Most of the researches methods in Information System field include conversation
analysis [9] and Grounded Theory approach [10].
Grounded theory approach is driven by the data with the aim to understand and
discover patterns. A grounded theory is not built a priori; rather, it emerges during
study as data collection, analysis, and theory development occur in parallel.
Research and investigation cannot be undertaken on the assumption that people
can simply be questioned, counted and processed; but neither can it be undertaken on
the basis that they can simply be observed and recorded.
Grounded Theory method presents an approach that directs the attention of
researchers on considering contexts of study as problematic and non obvious. A
challenge that can only be met with the contributions of actors involved in the
context.
Myers [11] stated that Grounded theory approach is particular useful for
developing context-based research oriented to process in an effort to describe
argumentative interactions analyzing the messages of different threads.
7 Some results from PhD project
The results of the PhD project leads to the assumption that a substantive theory of
argumentative interactions makes sense to understanding the meaning that subject
attributed to their action. In according to constructivist interpretation of Theory
Grounded Theory [12], Knowledge is a human construct that arises from actions of
social beings. The originality assigned to this PhD work is how a theory of
argumentation derived from the data can explain the processes of sharing knowledge
by using an ethnographic approach.
The results of this study are different by others in the type of software used for
elaboration and understanding of data. NVivo 7.0 allows constructing map of
argumentative interactions considering from authentic situations.
17

8 Conclusions and future work: contribution to the problem
solution
The results of PhD research indicate that students can be motivated to critically check
each other’s information through interactive argumentation.
Students construct their own understanding in individual and collective work. This
aspect permits them to compare each other’s different points of view.
This study, conducted using a qualitative approach, can be considered a point of
departure for research on argumentative interaction that taking into account the voice
of the participants. It is extremely important give indications to designers of courses.
The design of e-learning course can be done efficiently taking into account the
needs, the beliefs and understandings of all learners. This is the most challenging
issues of e-learning researches.
Another important aspect that emerges from this PhD project concerns the role of
technologies in providing new tools for conducting researches and new means for
understanding the way social realities get constructed through discursive behavior.
References
1. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C.: Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The
Journal of the learning sciences, 3(3), 265--283 (1994)
2. Muller, N., Perret-Clermot, A-N.: Argumentation and education. Theoretical foundations
and practice. Springer, London (2009)
3. Hornbæk, K.: Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and
research International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (2), 79--102 (2006)
4. Baker, M.: Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge: In Muller,
N., Perret-Clermot, A-N.: Argumentation and education. Theoretical foundations and
practices. Springer, London (2009)
5. Andriessen, J., Schwarz, B.: Argumentative design in Argumentation and education.
Theoretical foundations and practices. Springer London (2009)
6. Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., Traum, D.: The role of grounding in collaborative
learning tasks. In: Dillenbourg., P. (eds.) Collaborative learning: Cognitive and
computational approaches. Amsterdam, Pergamon (1999)
7. Dillenbourg, P., Traum, G.: The relationship between interaction and problem solving in
virtual collaborative environments. Paper presented at the 7th European conference for
Research on Learning and Instruction. Athens, Greece (1997)
8. Glaser, B.: Basic of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs forcing. Sociological Press,
Mill Valley (1992)
9. Stinchcombe, D.: The logic of social science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2005).
10. Strauss, A. L., Corbin, J.: Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1990)
11. Sacks, H. & Jefferson, G.: Lectures on conversation. Blackwell Publishing, London (1985)
12. Glaser, B., Strauss, A.L.: The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research. New York, Aldine De Gruyter (1967)
13. Myers, M., D.: Qualitative Research in Information Systems
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworld/index.html
14. Charmaz, K.: Grounded Theory: Objectivist & Constructivist Methods. In: Denzin, N.,
Lincoln, Y., (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London (2000)
18

Argumentative Interactions In Online Asynchronous Communication

More Related Content

Similar to Argumentative Interactions In Online Asynchronous Communication (20)

More from Carrie Cox (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Argumentative Interactions In Online Asynchronous Communication