This study investigated the extent to which levels of certainty impacted the argumentative knowledge construction in individual work and group work. Argumentative knowledge construction has been characterized into simple claims, grounds, qualifiers, counterarguments, and integrated replies to illustrate the components of argumentation and nature of resolving conflicts in argumentation where certainty levels have been divided into uncertain, neutral, and certain. Findings showed that individual and group work differed significantly in terms of levels of certainty for simple arguments and counterarguments. Study implications were discussed

This study compares the high- and low-performing groups’ knowledge co-construction process in the context of computer-supported collaborative argumentation from epistemic, argument, and social perspectives. Product analysis, lag sequential analysis, Sankey diagram visualization, and social network analysis were used to analyze groups’ written argumentation artefacts, on-screen behaviors, and online interactions. Results show that the high-performing group students demonstrated a higher level of engagement and cognitive elaboration than the low-performing group. The high-performing group was more competent in integrating various argumentation elements than the low-performing group. And the students in the high-performing group tended to contribute equally to their group work. The implications of the findings in designing and implementing knowledge co-construction activities are discussed.

Peer feedback is widely applied to support peer learning and accumulating studies pointed out that feedback features directly impact its learning benefits. However, existing peer feedback studies provide limited insights into group-level peer feedback activities in authentic classrooms. This study conducted group-level peer feedback activity in social studies classrooms of a Singapore secondary school. Fourteen groups of students (N = 61, Female = 61) participated in group-level peer feedback during the computer-supported collaborative argumentation activities. Students’ collaborative argumentation and peer feedback were collected. Paired sample t-test was conducted to compare each group’s argumentation performance before and after peer feedback activity. Qualitative content analysis was implemented to identify the cognitive and affective features of peer feedback given and received by more-improvement groups and less-improvement groups. A comparison of the feature networks between two student groups revealed the effective practices of peer feedback. The results demonstrated the key role of the specific solution when student groups gave and received peer feedback apart from problem identification and general suggestions. Besides, providing peer feedback at the overall argumentation level was found to be more beneficial than a word or evidence level. When receiving feedback, the use of hedge was found to bring more group improvement than mitigation language. These findings highlight the important features of peer feedback in group-level peer feedback activities, providing insights for the design and instruction of group-level peer feedback activities in authentic classrooms.

Peer feedback is known to have positive effects on knowledge improvement in a collaborative learning environment. Attributed to technology affordances, class-wide peer feedback could be garnered at a wider range in the networked learning environment. However, more empirical studies are needed to explore further the effects of type and depth of feedback on knowledge improvement. In this mixed method research, 38 students underwent a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) lesson in an authentic classroom environment. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted on the collected data. Pre- and post-test comparison results showed that students’ conceptual knowledge on adaptations improved significantly after the CSCL lesson. Qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the knowledge improved before and after the peer feedback process. The results showed that the class-wide intergroup peer feedback supported learners, with improvement to the quality of their conceptual knowledge when cognitive capacity had reached its maximum at the group level. The peer comments that seek further clarity and suggestions prompted deeper conceptual understanding, leading to knowledge improvement. However, such types of feedback were cognitively more demanding to process. The implications of the effects of type of peer feedback on knowledge improvement and the practical implications of the findings for authentic classroom environments are discussed.

Background Collaborative learning is widely applied in real-world classrooms while young learners still have challenges engaging in high-quality knowledge co-construction processes. Researchers suggested an individual preparation activity before collaboration. However, there remains a limited understanding of the role of individual preparation on students’ collaborative learning.

Method
Conducted in a fifth-grade English language class in a Singapore primary school, this study explored students’ collaborative learning outcome and process under two conditions: individual preparation before collaboration (With-IP) and immediate collaboration (Without-IP) conditions. Student groups’ collaborative argumentation artifacts were collected and coded. Process analysis was conducted to reveal the distribution and transitional pattern of students’ verbal discussions and online collaboration behaviors.

Findings
This study reveals that individual preparation (With-IP) significantly enhanced the quality of collaborative argumentation compared to no preparation (Without-IP), by fostering more idea elaboration, deeper engagement with content knowledge, and higher quality of arguments. However, the students were also found to make more coordination and regulation efforts in the With-IP condition than Without-IP condition.

Contribution
This research underscores the role of individual preparation on collaborative learning processes and outcomes. This insight is pivotal for educators and practitioners in tailoring collaboration scripts to the objectives of classroom teaching and learning.

Through collaborative argumentation, students gain in-depth understanding of learning content when they build on one another’s knowledge. Although individual preparation (IP) is found to be effective to foster collaborative learning, the mechanism of how IP influence the knowledge construction behavior is underexplored. This study investigated how IP influenced secondary school students in relation to knowledge construction behavioral patterns when participating in online collaborative argumentation activities. 20 students participated in two computer-supported collaborative argumentation lessons with one group with IP, and the other group without. Screen video recordings of students constructing arguments in groups during two lessons were collected and analyzed. Epistemic Network Analysis was conducted to examine students’ knowledge construction behaviors in the two lessons with and without IP. The results show that there were significant impact on students’ knowledge construction characteristics between the two lessons. Students who did not go through the IP phase tended to exhibit behaviors related to ideas refinement more than the students who went through the IP phase. The implications of how to design and implement effective knowledge construction are discussed.