Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Open Access

Argumentative knowledge construction and certainty navigation: A comparison between individual and group work

2023, Chen, Wenli, Ng, Eng Eng, Su, Guo, Su, Junzhu, Li, Xinyi, Chai, Aileen Siew Cheng, Lyu, Qianru

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

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Open Access

The role of peer feedback on the quality of students’ computer-supported collaborative argumentation

2023, Chen, Wenli, Ng, Eng Eng, Li, Xinyi, Chai, Aileen Siew Cheng, Lyu, Qianru

The importance of peer feedback in collaborative argumentation has been well-established. However, little is known about the extent to which peer feedback is associated with the quality of collaborative argumentation. Particularly, there is limited evidence for how specific types of feedback is related to argumentation quality. This study investigated peer feedback against four dimensions of collaborative argumentation quality (clarity, multiple perspectives, selection of evidence, and elaboration and depth). Collaborative argumentation quality was also compared against peer feedback types (appropriateness, specificity, and elaboration). In this design-based research (DBR), a class of 40 secondary Grade Three students in Singapore participated in three cycles of argumentation and peer feedback activities using the AppleTree online learning environment, each cycle consisting of five collaborative learning phases scripted by the Spiral Model of Collaborative Knowledge Improvement (SMCKI): Individual ideation, group synergy, peer critique, group refinement, and individual achievement. Scaffolds of sentence openers and reflections were added in Cycles 2 and 3. Quantitative analyses comparisons of argumentation and per feedback quality across three cycles revealed that except for the multiple perspectives dimension of argumentation quality, students performed significantly better in forming their argumentations and giving peer feedback. Additionally, the quality of argumentation improved significantly over the three cycles when accounting for peer feedback types as correlates, and vice versa.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Open Access

The effects of individual preparation on students’ collaborative argumentation-based learning: An exploratory study in a secondary school classroom

2023, Chen, Wenli, Su, Junzhu, Lyu, Qianru, Li, Xinyi, Chai, Aileen Siew Cheng, Su, Guo, Ng, Eng Eng

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Open Access

The role of individual preparation for knowledge construction in collaborative argumentation: An epistemic network analysis

2023, Chen, Wenli, Su, Junzhu, Lyu, Qianru, Chai, Siew Cheng Aileen, Li, Xinyi, Su, Guo, Ng, Eng Eng

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.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Open Access

Supporting students’ uptake on peer feedback in collaborative argumentation: A design-based research

2024, Chen, Wenli, Li, Xinyi, Ng, Eng Eng, Su, Junzhu, Lyu, Qianru, Chai, Aileen Siew Cheng, Su, Guo

Students’ uptake of peer feedback is closely related to their learning improvement in peer feedback activity. However, the uptake of peer feedback remains challenging for students. To address this challenge, this study conducted design-based research to facilitate students’ peer feedback uptake practices. Three cycles of iterative designs were implemented to develop, implement, and evaluate a tool to scaffold the peer feedback uptake in classrooms. The findings indicate that the reflection tool effectively enhanced students’ uptake of peer feedback. The iterative design practice added value to the existing literature of peer feedback literacy and fine-tuned pedagogical scaffolds for peer feedback uptake.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Open Access

Measuring process and outcome of the scientific argumentation in a CSCL environment

2017, Chen, Wenli, Looi, Chee-Kit

This paper describes the conceptualization and operationalization of the scientific argumentation in a CSCL environment. An online platform is designed to support students’ collaborative argumentation with diagram-based representations of argumentation based on Toulmin’s (1958) Argumentation framework. Based on existing analytic frameworks of collaborative argumentation while accommodating the specific demands and characteristics of the target users and the environment involved, a conceptual framework and a group of indicators are derived for operationalizing the measurement constructs of the process and outcome of students’ collaborative argumentation.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Open Access

From individual ideation to group knowledge co-construction: Comparison of high- and low performing groups

2023, Chen, Wenli, Su, Guo, Li, Xinyi, Lyu, Qianru, Su, Junzhu, Chai, Aileen Siew Cheng, Ng, Eng Eng

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.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Embargo

How more-improvement and less-improvement groups differ in peer feedback giving and receiving practice-an exploratory study

2024, Chen, Wenli, Lyu, Qianru, Su, Junzhu

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.