The social dimension of learning through argumentation: Effects of human presence and discourse style

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 107, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 740-755

  Asterhan, Christa S C ^a   Babichenko, Miriam ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Belief in human presence; Conceptual change; Discourse styles; Social presence

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938954352     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/edu0000014     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Aharoni, E., & Fridlund, A. J. (2007). Social reactions toward people vs. computers: How mere labels shape interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2175-2189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.019
2. Asterhan, C. S. C. (2013). Epistemic and interpersonal dimensions of peer aargumentation: Conceptualization and quantitative assessment. In M. Baker, J. Andriessen, & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning (pp. 251-271). New York: Routledge.
3. Asterhan, C. S. C., Butler, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). On competitive and co-constructive dialectical argumentation. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) (Vol. 2, pp. 213-215). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
5. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009a). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 374-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x
6. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009b). Transformation of robust misconceptions through peer argumentation. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interactions (pp. 159-172). New York: Routledge.
7. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 819-833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007002
8. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 68-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
9. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Gregg, J. (2001, May). The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. Paper presented at the 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia.
10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (1995). Conflict between incompetences and influence of a low-expertise source in hypothesis testing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 457-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250408
12. Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300-1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1300
13. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 323-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9054-2
14. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
15. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active- constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
16. Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (in press). Dialogue patterns that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing Intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. New York: Routledge.
17. Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x
18. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 883-908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385
19. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
20. Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effect during group problem solving: Do they bias evaluation and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.506
21. Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 837-861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701411567
22. Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 61-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9049-2
23. Darnon, C., Doll, S., & Butera, F. (2007). Dealing with a disagreeing partner: Relational and epistemic conflict elaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 227-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173423
24. Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766-776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.766
25. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3
26. Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.001
27. Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417-446.
28. Gabriele, A. J., & Montecinos, C. (2001). Collaborating with a skilled peer: The influence of achievement goals and perceptions of partners' competence on the participation and learning of low-achieving students. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 152-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220970109600654
29. Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97, 497-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
30. Howe, C. (2009). Collaborative group work in middle childhood: Joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth of knowledge. Human Development, 52, 215-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000215072
31. Howe, C., McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 67-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712604X15527
32. Howley, I., Kanda, T., Hayashi, K., & Rose, C. (2014). Effects of social presence and social role on help-seeking and learning. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 415-422). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559667
33. Hoyt, C. L., Blascovich, J., & Swinth, K. R. (2003). Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence, 12, 183-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/105474603321640932
34. Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I., II. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 35-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504505
35. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
36. Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 53-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1801_03
37. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61-78). New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Kreijns, K. (2004). Sociable CSCL environments: Social affordances, sociability, and social presence. (Doctoral Dissertation, Open University of the Netherlands). Retrieved from http://dspace.learningnetworks.org/bitstream/1820/1030/1/Dissertation%20Kreijns%202004.pdf
39. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310
40. Lee, K. M., & Nass, C. (2003). Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 289-296). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
41. Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction. London: Routledge.
42. Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopfer, E. (2005). How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffu-sion and osmosis? Cell Biology Education, 4, 235-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-09-0049
43. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359-375.
44. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York: Routledge.
45. Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9
46. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
47. Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
48. Odom, A. L. (1995). Secondary & college biology students' misconceptions about diffusion & osmosis. American Biology Teacher, 57, 409-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4450030
49. Ogan, A., Finkelstein, S., Mayfield, E., Matsuda, N., & Cassell, J. (2012). Oh dear Stacy! Social interaction, elaboration, and learning with teachable agents. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 39-48). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
50. Okita, S., Bailenson, J., & Schwartz, D. L. (2008). Mere belief in social action improves complex learning. In The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2008 (Vol. 2, pp. 132-139). Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
51. Osborne, J. (2010, April 23). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
52. Pool, G. J., Wood, W., & Leck, K. (1998). The self-esteem motive in social influence: Agreement with valued majorities and disagreement with derogated minorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 967-975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.967
53. Rader, E., Echelbarger, M., & Cassell, J. (2011). Brick by brick: Iterating interventions to bridge the achievement gap with virtual peers. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2971-2974). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
54. Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (Eds.) (in press). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge, for the American Educational Research Association.
55. Rodicio, H. G., & Sanchez, E. (2012). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning: A comparison of human tutoring and computer support. Interactive Learning Environments, 20, 423-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.500090
56. Rose, C. P., & Torrey, C. (2005). Interactivity and expectation: Eliciting learning oriented behavior with tutorial dialogue systems. In M. F. Costabile & F. Paternò (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT'05) (pp. 323-336). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
57. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2010). Argumentation and reasoning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.) International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 137-176). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
58. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right . . . If they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2
59. Shechtman, N., & Horowitz, L. M. (2006). Interpersonal and noninterpersonal interactions, interpersonal motives, and the effect of frustrated motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1126-1139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288669
60. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2011). Effects of face-to-face versus chat communication on performance in a collaborative inquiry modeling task Computers & Education, 56, 379-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.022
61. Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.651
62. Tartaro, A., & Cassell, J. (2006). Using virtual peer technology as an intervention for children with autism. In J. Lazar (Ed.), Universal usability: Designing computer interfaces for diverse user populations (pp. 231-262). New York: Wiley.
63. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., . . . Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46, 197-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
65. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031-1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199811)35:9_1031::AID-TEA5_3.0.CO;2-E
66. Walton, D. N. (1992). Slippery slope arguments. New York: Oxford University Press.
67. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
68. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
69. Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 649-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280803
70. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
71. Zajonc, R. B. (1965, July 16). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269
72. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008