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

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.