http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training/printable/wiki/Wikis_in_Higher_Education_UD.pdf. Pontecorvo, C. and Pirchio, S. (2000). A Developmental View on ...
Note: This chapter is published in Wiki Supporting Formal and Informal Learning, S. Bocconi and G. Trentin (Eds), Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-61324-849-2
Chapter 7
A Conceptual Architecture for WikiBased Learning Processes in the Area of Argumentation Stefania Bocconi Institute for Educational Technology, National Research Council, Italy
Abstract This chapter addresses the potential of wiki technology for enhancing the processes of argumentative knowledge construction. In these processes learners engage in collaborative discourse activities by constructing arguments and counter-arguments, in order to acquire knowledge (Weinberger and Fisher, 2006). The importance of argumentative knowledge construction for both Higher Education and Life-Long Learning lies in its very nature; in order to engage in academic discussions, learners need to be able to argue rationally, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of other people’s standpoints, and supporting their own positions with adequate grounds. Acquiring such competencies is of particular value for becoming active, enabled participants in current society, where knowledge is a major resource and is often the result of a collaborative effort. An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of wikis in the collaborative processes of argumentative knowledge construction is described. The experimental outcomes confirm the potential of wikis to effectively favour both the creation of a rich argumentative network and the quality of individual argumentative acts. A conceptual architecture (WikiDiA - Wiki for Dialogical Argumentation) for wikibased learning processes in the area of argumentation is also proposed.
2
Stefania Bocconi
Introduction According to Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006), engaging learners in collaborative knowledge building should be a fundamental aim of education in the knowledge age. Jointly constructing knowledge by means of dialogic argumentation is especially effective, because it helps develop critical thinking (Kuhn, 1999; Driver et al., 2000; Bouyias et al., 2007). This holds true at any educational level, and in particular for higher education. The importance of argumentative knowledge construction in higher education pedagogy lies in its very nature; the study of subjects and disciplines at this level implies students’ ability to investigate complex connections among knowledge items. This, together with acquisition of subject-specific knowledge and inquiry methods, is one of the distinctive features of higher education pedagogy. These characteristics can also be seen as three forms of argumentation (Andrews, 2010). Therefore, improving higher education pedagogy implies offering students more opportunities to master argumentation. Wikis can help in this respect by enabling information-sharing and joint activity in a simple and straightforward way and hence providing a valid support for collaborative learning. This chapter discusses how wiki-based environments can promote students’ argumentation skills in university courses. An account is given of the effectiveness of the use of wikis in the collaborative processes of argumentative knowledge construction, if it is paired with a sound methodology of use. There follows a description of one exploratory study that was designed and developed in a university setting to investigate students’ behaviours and the situations determined by the use of wikis. Results showed the added value of the argumentation process activated in a wiki-based community of learners; this derived from the increased possibilities to share the knowledge and know-how generated by the community involved. Students were facilitated in jointly constructing compelling arguments and generating multiple points of view. The argumentative knowledge construction was perceived as a shared effort to produce new knowledge, rather than as a mere discussion of information. Toulmin’s layout of argument (1958) was adopted and students were specifically trained in this model. The chapter is concluded by presenting a conceptual architecture (WikiDiA- Wiki for Dialogical Argumentation) for wiki-based learning processes in the area of argumentation.
Why Argumentative Knowledge Construction Matters for Higher Education and Life-Long Learning One fundamental aim of higher education is to develop students’ critical attitudes towards knowledge and their ability to present well-grounded arguments (Terenzini et al., 1995; Muller-Mirza and Perret-Clermont, 2009; Andrews, 2010). In order to engage in academic discussions, whether in speech, writing or other modes, students need to be able to argue
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
3
rationally, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of other people’s standpoints, formulating their own positions, and supporting them with relevant and adequate grounds (Marttunen and Laurinen, 1999). These skills are of particular value in the new network society in which people have to be able to cope with a large amount of information and select essentials from it. In such a situation, the ability to critically assess information from different points of view is important. Engagement in small- or large-group argumentative discussions has been found to improve conceptual understanding (Mason, 2001) and knowledge building (Leitão, 2000; Chinn and Brewer, 1998). In this context, the learner plays the role of co-author in a constructive socio-cognitive process where argumentation leads to new understanding and transformation of previously-acquired knowledge. In general, the importance of the social and dialogic dimension, even if it is not explicitly focused on argumentation, has been stressed by many authors in the literature as essential for effective learning and cognitive development, in particular in the current knowledge society (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2003; Tan et al., 2006). Vygotsky (1986) highlights learning as an essentially social process in which knowledge is built by a collaborative effort among students. Bruner (1996, p. 68) points out that “the cultural contexts that favour mental development are principally and inevitably interpersonal”. Drawing on Bakhtin (1981) and Wertsch’s (1985) ideas of converging, complementary arguments, Pontecorvo and Pirchio (2000) point out that any thinking activity should necessarily be grounded in a dialogic dimension. Argumentation is therefore of interest for educational research in that it is a conceptual tool suitable for promoting learning, knowledge building and cognitive growth. Despite that fact that argumentation skills appear to be so necessary, university students seldom know how to argue effectively, as documented by several research studies; not only do they have difficulties producing relevant evidence to support their positions (Kuhn, 1991), but they are also often guided by beliefs and biases when evaluating arguments (Klaczynski, 2000). Moreover, Stein and Albro (2001) demonstrate that the affective dimension has a strong influence on students’ effective engagement in argumentation; college students tend to avoid getting involved in argumentative discussions for fear that this might disrupt interpersonal relations with their peers. A further difficulty is introduced by the fact that argumentation skills are mostly subjectdependent (Andrews, 2010) and hence only generic skills translate across fields. Thus it is important for university students to practice argumentation on a variety of subjects of their interest for which they have a command of discipline-specific knowledge and discourse (Mitchell and Andrews, 2000; Riddle, 1997), as well as for them to be introduced to effective argumentation by means of suitable methods and tools. Finally, fruitful engagement of students in collaborative argumentation may be inhibited by a number of factors such as talking skills, timidity, gender, age and ethnicity. Such hindrances may be overcome by exploiting suitable technological tools, for example by carrying out the process in text form on the web.
4
Stefania Bocconi
Argumentative Knowledge Construction The expression argumentative knowledge construction is used to indicate the process of constructing knowledge by means of argumentation1: “learners identify arguments, analyze them, and consider external circumstances (e.g., use of language), reason scientifically, and apply logic” (Astleitner et al., 2003, p. 3). By constructing such arguments in interaction with their peers, learners acquire knowledge about argumentation, as well as knowledge of the content under consideration (Andriessen, 2006; Andriessen et al., 2003). Developing argumentation skills entails learners understanding how to construct a single argument and how to sequence arguments correctly. As concerns the construction of single arguments, a widely-applied approach is that of Toulmin’s (1958) model. This model includes three fundamental concepts: Claim, Data and Warrant. • • •
Claim: this is the assertion that an individual makes. Data: these are the facts that the person involved in the argument explicitly refers to in support of the claim. Warrants: these are the reasons (rules, principles, etc.) that are proposed to justify the connections between the Data and the Claim. The strength of the warrant is indicated by including a modal Qualifier, which specifies the conditions under which the claim can be taken as true.
More complex arguments can additionally include a Backing and Rebuttal. Backings of an argument are basic assumptions (usually taken to be commonly agreed on) that provide the justification for particular warrants. Finally, a rebuttal specifies the conditions under which the claim will not be true. Toulmin’s model thus provides a reference framework for the ‘microstructure’ of arguments. As to argument sequencing (the macrostructure), according to Leitão (2000) it involves the construction of arguments, counter-arguments, and integrative arguments. Learners engage in elaborating content while generating longer argumentative sequences; this process also results in acquisition of more discipline-specific knowledge. Moreover, by engaging in meaningful sequences of argumentations, learners internalize these processes and become able to apply them also to other contexts. Whereas single arguments can be evaluated with regard to microstructure, macrostructure describes the dynamics of the argumentation processes (Leitão, 2000). The joint application of these two models provides a complete approach to argument construction. This is consistent with Baker’s (2003) approach to argumentation and learning. Firstly, by constructing arguments, each learner self-explains the reference material and integrates this new knowledge into his/her own cognitive structure. Then, the construction of counterarguments stimulates meta-cognitive activities and engages learners in reflecting on their initial positions. Finally, each learner constructs integrative arguments. Through
1 Following Andrews (2010), in this chapter a distinction is made between argument (the product of argumentation, eg. an essay, a debate, a dissertation, etc.) and argumentation (the process, sequence or exchange of arguments in a specific context, e.g. education, politics, etc.).
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
5
arguments and counterarguments learners acquire domain-specific knowledge, as well as knowledge on argumentation (Leitão, 2000).
Computer-Based Argumentation Recently, research efforts have also been directed towards understanding and assessing the role played by ICT (Information and communication technologies) in collaborative learning, as well as in practicing argumentation and critical thinking (eg. Joiner and Jones, 2003; Bouyias et al., 2007; Scheuer et al., 2010). As Hewings et al. (2006) point out, the key feature of ICT with respect to practicing argumentation and critical thinking is the support it potentially offers for the parallel discussion of alternative points of view between participants. Furthermore, studying through ICT consists mainly of text-based contributions to the topics under consideration. As Andriessen (2006; p.199) puts it, electronic conferencing can be described as a “slow discussion” in which students “can broaden and deepen their insights about important issues” and educators can “monitor progress at a relatively slow pace”. These qualities are important in argumentative dialogues and debates in which the goal is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of others’ contributions. Weinberger and colleagues (2006) present results from empirical studies on facilitating and analyzing argumentative knowledge construction in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). These studies attempt to address students’ difficulties in constructing and evaluating arguments by providing them with additional resources and tools for visualizing and guiding their argumentation. Scheuer and colleagues (2010) carried out a thorough and extensive review of the literature on argumentation software tools for both supporting and teaching argumentation. In particular, Scheuer and colleagues focus on the way in which (individual and collaborative) argumentation has been supported and taught to students using ad hoc computer-based systems developed over the last fifteen years. By scaffolding good argumentation practices, the digital argumentation environments reviewed by these authors aimed to support students in “learning to argue”, as well as in “arguing to learn”. The overall findings from this large and impressive study (more than 50 digital argumentation environments were analysed) confirm that argumentation tools, if well designed, have the potential to improve students’ argumentative discourse. The authors point out (Scheuer et al., 2010, p. 94) that the variety of existing argumentation systems specifically provides different ways to: • • • •
represent arguments visually, design (in the form of macro and micro- scripts) the interaction between the student, the argument, and (potentially) other students, represent arguments in the form of ontologies, and automatically analyze arguments and provide students with intelligent feedback.
Improved performance was also achieved in some studies focused on post-test transfer: students proved to be able to apply argumentation and reasoning skills without tool support, which suggests that argumentation skills had indeed been acquired.
6
Stefania Bocconi
Interesting results also emerged from a number of empirical studies regarding the form of external argument representation. The way in which a system visually lays out an argument and allows students to work on it has an impact on the behaviour and learning gains of student; this aspect should thus be seriously considered by system designers. In addition, contextual factors can contribute to productive computer-based argumentation: “the overall pedagogical setup, including sequencing of activities, distributions of roles, instruction on how to use diagramming tools, usage of additional external communication tools, and collaboration design, has an influence on learning outcomes” (Scheuer et al., 2010, p. 94).
Why Focus on Wikis? As discussed above, ICT-based environments have provided multiple ways of interacting and exchanging information among groups of users in the form of messages or files: emails, forums, discussion boards, blogs, instant messaging, social spaces, learning management systems. While there are a number of similarities between wikis and other web tools, there are also some significant differences. In the higher education context, Plourde (2008) summarizes the similarities, differences and most common usages of main web tools in comparison with wikis (see Table 1). Table 1. Similarities and differences between wikis and other web tools
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
7
(adapted from Plourde (2008)).
Whereas other Web 2.0 systems (e.g. blogs, file-sharing etc.) mainly support information pooling, wiki environments offer a unique feature, i.e. the possibility of jointly modifying a common file. Hence, wikis offer a distinctive logic of “shared editing/creation”, where individual contributions merge in one document (see Figure 1).
8
Stefania Bocconi
Figure1. CSCL environments: interaction architectures.
The literature reports a good number of wiki applications in education (cf. Neumann, in this Volume), particularly as concerns co-writing (Weng and Gennari, 2004; Hampel et al., 2005; Schaffert et al., 2006; Trentin, 2009, this Volume; Swan et al., 2006). Forte and Bruckman (2007) focus on how to engage students in collaborative writing activities in a wiki-based environment. They investigate how to design wiki publishing tools and curricula to support learning among student authors, and suggest that collaborative publishing on a wiki offers an interesting model for creating authentic classroom writing activities and can be a powerful tool for constructing knowledge. With reference to distributed authorship and joint editing, Fountain (2005) outlines a number of specific pedagogical potentials of wikis including: •
•
• •
•
Wikis maximize interplay. In order to make an impact, in wikis any contribution needs to be valuable and relevant to remain published. Taking advantage of reflection, reviewing and cumulative written results, students are encouraged to create alternatives when they do not like others’ approaches. Wiki technology is text-based. The simplified hypertext format may allow for a greater concentration on the text itself, that is, on quality content creation and/or comprehension. Wikis permit distributed authorship. Roles, collaboration dynamics and participation strategies can vary during the collaborative writing process. Wikis promote negotiation. Non-hierarchical decision-making about what counts can occur between students, whether within a given course or across extended periods of time. Wikis work on volunteer collaboration. Wikis created in pedagogical contexts wherein collaboration is enforced (often depending on students’ grades and
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
•
9
experience) may prove to be an essential and non-negotiable component of creative and sustainable participation. Wikis endorse particular ways of writing. Wikis require trusting peers, as well as the process itself. Building trust and enabling it in the digital domain, across differing and often divergent times and spaces, may prove to be too great a challenge (in terms of time constraints) in an educational context.
Among wikis’ applications in higher education, the literature also reports positive experiences as concerns collaborative learning (e.g. Parker and Chao, 2007; Ebner et al., 2008; Neumann, in this Volume; Notari, 2006; Cubric, in this Volume), design-based learning (Rick and Guzdial, 2006), inventiveness (Guzdial et al., 2001), as well as inquirybased learning and the co-construction of knowledge (Yukawa, 2006; Kimmerle et al., in this Volume). All these experiences show wikis to be very flexible tools that, if paired with a sound methodology of use, have a good potential for supporting a variety of learning and knowledge-building activities in higher education. None of the above-mentioned applications, however, explicitly focuses on supporting argumentative knowledge construction.
Wikis for Supporting Argumentative Knowledge Construction in Higher Education This section presents a research study conducted at the University of Manchester (UK) that focuses on using wikis to support argumentative knowledge construction in university courses.
Study Motivation and Design Wikis’ potential for argumentation lies in the strong affinity between the participatory nature of this technology and the dialogic dimension of collaborative argumentation. The participatory features of wikis make them appear a particularly suitable support for collaborative argumentations because in such activities all participants need to contribute to the construction of a joint argument rather than to collect different points of view. These considerations led to the formulation of two general hypotheses (Bocconi, 2010): •
•
The use of wikis can promote the creation of learning environments conducive to argumentative knowledge construction. In particular, o wikis can effectively support collaboration and decision-making processes; o wikis significantly influence argument construction by triggering both the structure of individual arguments (microstructure) and the sequence of arguments (macrostructure). The intrinsic social nature of wikis stimulates students’ engagement in rebuttals and counter-arguments.
10
Stefania Bocconi
Specifically, this research study had a twofold objective: first, to evaluate in terms of effectiveness and ease of use the potential support of wiki technologies in facilitating collaborative processes of argumentative knowledge construction; secondly, to define a suitable conceptual architecture for exploiting such technological environments to support the collaborative construction of argumentative knowledge in learning environments. This research developed through three exploratory case studies aimed at observing different aspects of wiki-enhanced collaborative argumentation. The first phase of the research (F1) focused on the co-decision process of small-group learning; it aimed to check whether a wiki environment provided the functions that are important for carrying out such activity, and if its use was sufficiently easy for really facilitating the task. The second phase of the research (F2) focused on the collaborative process of argumentative knowledge construction. The effectiveness of wiki technology in facilitating students’ construction of counter-arguments, thus overcoming the fear that these might disrupt interpersonal relations with their peers, was observed. The third phase of the research (F3) was designed and developed as the research progressed. Based on the preliminary results of F2, this case study aimed to compare students’ engagement in face-to-face discussion vs. debate mediated by technology other than wikis; the specific aim was to observe whether either of these two modalities gave rise to a higher number of counter-arguments than the other, hence providing information as to whether other kinds of communication technology can be as effectively supportive as wiki for this kind of task. The architecture of the three experimental situations is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Overview of the architecture of each experimental situation in Case Study 1 (F1), Case Study 2 (F2) and Case Study 3 (F3).
The different objectives underlying the research have led to different experimental architectures; each phase of research was characterized respectively by the design of the architecture and the experimental situations (Bocconi, 2010). Presented below are the experimental situation and main results from Case Study 2 (F2), which specifically contributed to setting up a conceptual architecture (WikiDiA - Wiki for
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
11
Dialogical Argumentation) for wiki-based argumentative knowledge construction described in the last part of this chapter.
Method Participants The case study was carried out within the undergraduate course on “Interactive technologies2” and carried course credits. The experimental group included all course participants: 17 undergraduate students, 11 males and 6 females. The ages ranged from 19 to 23. Participants did not have any previous experience in collaborative argument construction, or in the use of wikis. Since the course was interdisciplinary, the participants came from a variety of backgrounds: engineering, business technology, philosophy and religion. This second-year module lasted 10 weeks, 2 hours per week. Its purpose was to introduce students to key ideas about how to design multimodal interactive technologies that comply with the constraints imposed by human needs and limitations. The students were expected to develop an appreciation of how to analyze the cost/benefit ratios of novel interactive technologies in the context of a specific task and how to critique proposals for the design of interactive technologies. The course aimed to (1) develop students’ understanding of novel uses for multi-modal interactive technology, and (2) develop skills in using research literature, constructing argumentation, collaborating and writing. Case Study Design and Procedures This case study focused on the actual process of collaborative knowledge construction. Here, the focus was particularly on students’ construction of arguments and counterarguments, and the potential of wiki technology for helping them overcome social constraints and engage in counterarguments. This experimental study was action-oriented, i.e., the procedure implemented was repeatedly adapted during the development of the experience on the basis of students’ feedback and partial evaluation. The activity was introduced by lectures on 5 different issues (e.g. virtual reality for ecommerce, bi-manual interfaces, ubiquitous learning), on each of which the students were expected to debate. In each lecture, the lecturer introduced a topic and assigned students to one of two groups (“for” and “against”) for each of the debates. The main body of the activity involved a practical exercise aimed at developing skills in argumentative knowledge construction on the subject of new interactive technologies. Toulmin’s model was explained and the students were required to use it to structure their arguments/counter-arguments. Following Baker’s method (2003), the joint application of Toulmin’s layout of argument (microstructure) and Leitão’s (2000) argument sequencing (macrostructure) provided a complete approach to argument construction in this study. In practical terms, after constructing individual arguments, students added counterarguments to peers’ claims, in order to challenge their initial positions. The construction of counterarguments forced learners to reflect on their initial positions. Finally, each learner constructed integrative arguments, and consequently refined his/her initial position. This sequence of
2 At the School of Informatics, University of Manchester (UK) in the spring semester 2007.
12
Stefania Bocconi
activities facilitated the creation of a community-based argumentative network (an important contribution that will be discussed in the results). Common tasks for all the issues considered were: • • • • • •
class brainstorming session to identify a general list of relevant “pros” and “cons”; students’ individual literature search (with Google Scholar), to find relevant references for constructing arguments; internal “for” and “against” group meetings to compare notes; students’ individual contributions /arguments posted on the wiki-based argumentative network; creation of counter-arguments/rebuttals and editing of arguments posted by others; response to rebuttals posted by others.
The assessment was articulated into two stages with the same structure, each contributing 50% to the coursework mark. Each assessment consisted of an individual essay answering one of the 5 questions addressed in the lectures, and practical argument construction. Each essay had to be based on the arguments constructed during the practical activity. The technology environment adopted for the study was TWIKI. This platform is available free (http://www.twiki.org) and it is one of the largest and most powerful systems in the currently-available wiki environments. A further reason for choosing TWiki was that it is rich but easy to use (e.g. uploading documents, formatting text, restoring previous versions etc.). To support students’ collaborative work and allow them to engage in dialogic argumentation, the “Comment Box” was also activated on each wiki page. This feature allowed students to post their ‘rebuttals/counter-arguments’ directly onto the main argument page, thus combining the dialogical and the content dimensions of the argumentation. A selfdiscovery-driven approach to ‘training’ students in the use of TWIKI was adopted. Students were asked to access the wiki space set-up for the course activities (Figure 3) and to start using the ‘editing’ functionalities needed to create/modify a wiki page for their activities. Considering the key role played by wiki technology in the phenomenon under investigation, supporting notes were also prepared and delivered to students. Students’ pages created on TWIKI were all protected with logins and passwords. Authentications were required for viewing content as well as for adding/editing content.
Data Analysis In this study, various types of empirical data were gathered. A variety of data collection instruments and sources were used, including:
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
13
Figure 3. TWIKI interface. Case Study 2 course homepage.
• • • • •
wiki-based argumentative acts; history files of all wiki pages created by students; transcripts of face-to-face group meetings and students’ talk-aloud sessions; end-of-course and module-feedback questionnaires; students’ essays.
Data were qualitatively analyzed with the aim of shedding light on students’ behaviours and situations determined by the use of wikis. In order to avoid seriously challenging data analysis due to the lack of explicit standards in this field (i.e. wiki-based argumentation), the content analyses were carried out using existing coding schema from the literature. Specifically, the analysis of students’ arguments developed through wiki technologies was based on Toulmin’s model, following the interpretation schema of Verheij (2003). The analysis of rebuttals/counter-arguments followed the analytic scheme of Felton and Kuhn (2001), which comprises three broad categories: transactive questions, if the rebuttals attempt to engage others in discourse (these often take the form of a question or request for information); transactive statements, which do not imply a direct response but refer directly to the peer’s previous utterance (these are expressions of the student’s thoughts in response to a peer); non-transactive statements, if utterances fail to connect to a peer’s previous utterance. Construct validity was fostered using data triangulation, i.e. different types of empirical material (e.g. students’ interviews, talk -aloud transcripts, wiki-based documents) were contrasted with one another when categorising the various types of material.
14
Stefania Bocconi
Results The main outcomes from this case study are summarized here from the points of view of ease of use of the wiki and effective support for argumentation and learning, as well as facilitation of counter-arguments. As to the effective support of wiki technology for collaborative argumentation, the characteristics of the argumentative network created by the students provide an indication of how well it works. A permanent, browsable argumentative network was created after 10 weeks of course; this was composed of about 108 nodes (a node is any new argumentative act) with a growth rate of 100% over the first period (students’ contributions constantly doubled during the first weeks, as seen in Figure 4).
Figure 4. Evolution of the argumentative network created by students in Case Study 2.
It is interesting to remark that, disregarding quality, the growth dimension of the network shows advancement in students’ argumentative practice and confidence. As concerns the behaviours which emerged, each student contributed to the development of the argumentative network with about 7 new contributions (by adding a new node) and over 26 contributions to the other existing network nodes as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Student’s contributions to the argumentative network Period week 1- 2 week 3 - 4 week 5 - 6 week 7 - 8 week 9 - 10
No. of nodes created
Tot. contributions
8 16 30 26 28 108
32 71 121 147 149 520
No. of individual contributions 13 19 63 67 59 221
No. of contributions to argumentative network 19 52 58 80 90 299
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
15
Figure 5 shows the total number of argumentative components developed by the students throughout the course, following Verheij’s approach, cited earlier. The nature of students’ contributions (most often “Data” and “Backing”) confirmed that they concentrated more on “conjunctive argument” (i.e. adding knowledge to arguments raised by their colleagues) than on finding counter-arguments. This behaviour also emerged from the nature of rebuttals (made applying Felton and Kuhn’s coding schema), which included a high number of “justify” and of “advance” (Figure 6).
Figure 5. Total number of argumentative components (based on Verheij’s schema (2003)). Total number of rebuttals classified according to type - Kuhn & Felton model 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
M et a? Po si tio n? Q ue st io n? R ef us e R es po n d? Su bt an tia U nc te on ne ct ed
y?
et a
tif
Ju s
M
s
re t
In
te rp
ee
is is m
D
-C
gr is a
nt er
ou C
D
pt
-A nt er
ou C
ue
oo C
ify ? C
on
tin
ify la r
la r C
as e?
C
As id e
C
ee
ce
ee ?
Ag r
Ag r
an
Ad v
Ad d
0
Figure 6. Total number of rebuttals (based on Felton and Khun’s schema (2001)).
16
Stefania Bocconi
Figure 7 shows two examples of the relations among argumentation elements created by the students in the wiki environment (macrostructure). The acronyms above the boxes correspond to the elements of Toulmin’s model that constitute the argumentative unit according to Verheij’s model: C= claim; D= data; W= warrant; B= backing; Q= qualifier; R= rebuttal. MAIN CLAIM
MAIN CLAIM
AGAINST GROUP
VIRTUAL REALITY FOR ECOMMERCE
CQDWBR
Lack Of Peripheral Vision
QDWBR CQDW
Vreality Technology
Advantages Of a Virtual Reality Store
CQDWBR
Improved Navigation
Immersive Virtual Reality
CQDWB QDW Return Custom
Virtual Reality Against Simulator Sickness
CWBR
Connectivity Of Vr
CQWBR
Virtual Reality Against Feasibility
CWB
Vreality Against Standards
CWB D
Vreality Cost
Kinematic Chain Model
DWB
BiManual Benefits
Multi User Support
DWB
CQDWB
Accessibilty For Users
CDR
Virtual Keyboards Lack Feedback
BiManual Modelling In VR N.D.
Uwais Accessibility
N.D.
CDWB
BiManual Efficiency
BiManual For Education
Limited Interaction Of BiManual Interfaces DR
Creating and Maintaining Labour
CQDWB
BiManual Properties Advantages
CDR
VR Efficiency Questionable
CQDWBR
DB
BiManual Usability
Cost Feasibility
CDB
CB
Vista Orientation
Touch Sensitive
Mimics Drafiting Table
Immaturity of Field
Vr References
CQDB
CDWB
QDBR
C
Diamond Touch
QDWB Interactive Definition
QDBR QDWB
N.D. VR Haptics Mapping
Interview Continuity
DWB
Little Evidence Of Benefit
CDWBR
CD DWB
DBR
Navigation Of Vr
FOR GROUP
FOR GROUP
CDB
AGAINST GROUP
Bi-Manual interfaces
B
Vreality Health Issues
D WBR
CQDWB
Vr Challenge Rico Conclusion
CQWBR
Performance Of Vr
Flexible Sizing
Not Tried and Tested
QDWBR
Vr may Not Be Appropriate App To Support …
QDB
BiManual References
Intuitive Interface
CDW
Being Realistic
Figure 7. Components of argumentations for two of the topics addressed in the course.
These examples show different amounts of work in the “FOR” and “AGAINST” groups for the two topics. This was most likely due to the nature of the considered topics, for which different amounts of data were available for constructing arguments and counterarguments, as well as to the personal inclination of the student involved, as for each topic the group composition changed. It is interesting to note, moreover, that each wiki page (represented in figures by the grey boxes) contains a sequence of contributions of different natures. These were usually contributed by different students, as emerged from an analysis of the history of the wiki pages. This underlines that collaboration in argumentative knowledge construction did in fact take place during the activity. The presence of contributions of different natures all grouped into one ‘node’ turned out to be handy when the students had to write their individual essays. This grouping was made possible by the features of the wiki technology used, which therefore appears indeed to have supported argumentative knowledge construction.
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
17
The diagram in Figure 7 well represents the network of argumentation elements and data that groups constructed in their wiki spaces, from which each student constructed his/her essay, extracting and sequencing the elements that he/she considered most appropriate. In general, the quality of the essays (evaluated by the course teacher) was good and increased as the experiment progressed. From a qualitative perspective, positive teacher ratings of student performance also confirmed these results. It is interesting to note that, when they were confronted with a more complex task, the quality of students’ performance (i.e. individual essays) slightly decreased (by an average of 5 marks) and then quickly rose again (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Students’ progress in essays.
The end-of-course questionnaire was answered by 15 out of 17 students. Most of the students (over 70%) were satisfied with wiki support for collaborative argumentation and the interaction modality (see Figure 9). As to the usability of the wiki environment, interesting results emerged from observing the evolution of the argumentative network; students rapidly learnt to use wiki functionalities, as shown by the rapid growth of the argumentative network. Over 70% of students found argument construction easier on wiki than face-to-face and in fact mostly chose the former mode (Figure 10). Students in fact mostly chose to collaborate on the wiki rather than face-to- face despite their being allowed to do both.
Discussion The data presented here provide evidence that, with a suitable methodology, wikis could facilitate dialogic argumentation, in particular the creation of good ‘conjunctive arguments’.
18
Stefania Bocconi
Figure 9. Students’ appreciation of wiki support for dialogic argumentation.
Figure 10. Students’ appreciation of ease of use.
Specifically, this experimental study explored the process of collaborative knowledge construction, with the aim of showing the effectiveness of wiki-based activities in facilitating students’ creation of an argumentative network which generates many arguments and counter-arguments, as shown in Figure 11. Results were mainly supported by data from
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
19
students’ written arguments and rebuttals, as well as from responses to teacher surveys and talk-aloud sessions.
Figure 11. Schema of the argumentative network in a wiki-based environment.
The teacher perceived the activity structure and the wiki-based environment as providing an efficient and effective way of supporting students’ argumentations. Concerning argument structure, a considerable number of data and backing components were revealed by analysis of students’ arguments. Approximately 100 utterances were identified where students, by including backings, suitably supported the warrant (which, in Toulmin’s model, is the element connecting data and claims). Hence, the lower occurrence of rebuttals as compared with other actions was probably influenced by the high number of backings, as the warrants were adequately supported. The tasks involving students’ creation of rebuttals/counter-arguments also revealed the students’ strong preference for engaging in collaborative processes by developing ‘conjunctive arguments’ (as opposed to counterarguments). By facilitating the splitting up of arguments into micro-units related to individual points, the highly modular structure of the wiki-based environments proved useful for helping students maintain logical coherence in their arguments, while following Toulmin’s model (Muller-Mirza and Perret-Clermont, 2009; Leitão, 2000; Schwarz and Glassner, 2007). In particular, the wiki-based environment which was set up promoted a dialogic dimension which facilitated oppositions between views (Leitão, 2000) rather than between individuals. Hence, the experience is in agreement with Andriessen’s (2006) observations that, in learning contexts, argumentation contributes more effectively to learning when it is not competitive (“students need to balance an assertiveness in advancing their claims with a sensitivity to the social effects of their argument on their opponent peers” p. 449). The students’ frequent use
20
Stefania Bocconi
of “conjunctive arguments”, i.e. adding knowledge to peers’ previous utterances, was in agreement with important literature (Resnick et al. 1993; Suthers, 2006). This last point appears to be particularly significant in that it points to an increased possibility for the students to learn from one another, hence playing for one another the role of “more competent peer”, capable of stimulating the proximal development zone, each one according to his/her own possibilities (Vygotsky, 1986). This suggests that experiences of this kind can actually improve the learning environment of higher education in a constructivist sense. Hence, this study showed that a wiki-based environment could be successfully used for effectively and conveniently supporting students’ learning through collaborative argumentation.
The WikiDiA Conceptual Architecture The experience gained from the experimental study discussed above was synthesized in a conceptual architecture named WikiDiA (Wiki for Dialogical Argumentation). This aims to help structure collaborative activities of dialogic argumentation, cooperation and decisionmaking, thus enhancing and supporting their development (Bocconi, 2010). The rationale for the WikiDiA conceptual architecture emerged from this and it was designed and applied by the author over a six-month period, during which the data collection phase of this study was being carried out. Its creation was informed by constructivist theory and related literature from both the argumentation and CSCL fields. The added value of the argumentation process activated in a wiki-based environment comes from the increased possibilities of sharing knowledge and know-how generated by the community involved. Students are facilitated in jointly constructing compelling arguments and generating multiple points of view. Because of their reticular nature, wikis naturally lead to a splitting-up of the arguments into micro-units related to individual points, which helps the students to keep logical coherence in their arguments while following the conceptual model. The argumentative knowledge construction becomes a shared effort to produce new knowledge, rather than the mere discussion of information. Toulmin’s layout of argument is adopted here, and students are specifically trained in this argumentation model. To fully take advantage of the possibilities offered by wikis for collaborative argumentation, the proposed conceptual architecture consists of four main steps, as summarized in Figure 12 and described below. Step 1: Introduction to topic and top-level claims. In this initial stage, students are introduced by the teacher to the overall debate topic and provided with a set of recommended readings. After being assigned to one of the two groups (“for” and “against”), students are given a top-level argument, which they are requested to support or oppose in the working group. To help students identify what kind of arguments might be relevant, a brainstorming session is carried out with the class. This early discussion allows teacher and students to share their initial ideas and generates a list of meaningful points of views for or against the proposed claim. Step 2: Constructing individual arguments. Working individually, each student is responsible for developing a small number of coherent, relevant and justified contributions to the debate. When individually developing their arguments along one of the lines which emerged in the previous step, students are requested to carry out the following basic steps: a)
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
21
search the topic for material to be used in the debate (start by finding one of the recommended readings on Google Scholar and then use the “cited by” link to view more recent articles); b) define terms and concepts that are central to the proposed claim; c) base arguments (for and against) on the literature considered and cite it where appropriate. During this phase, the teacher participates in the process as an advisor, giving suggestions and pointing out issues when appropriate. This step produces a number of micro-arguments which reflect individual views of the considered points, completed by supporting data. These microarguments will be organized in the next step into an exhaustive and compound discourse. In this step, students start collaborating in knowledge building by sharing materials that they consider to be of interest either for their own group mates or for the other group.
Figure 12. Wiki for Dialogical Argumentation (WikiDiA) conceptual architecture.
Step 3: Generating multiple points of view. Within the “for” and “against” group, students share their elaborations and collected data. Moreover, in order to meaningfully engage in the argumentation process, they need to agree upon definitions, evidence, and claims/counterclaims. To do so, they need to work collaboratively rather than competitively; they are required to contribute to the other members’ work by checking consistency, adding information, clarifying positions, linking elements. Then they start collaborating with the other group by developing counter-arguments (rebuttals) to their positions. This leads students to examine opposite points of view, further stimulating them to search for data supporting their argumentative challenge, in order to develop counter-arguments and respond
22
Stefania Bocconi
to their peers’ counterarguments. All this helps develop a more complete perspective on the topic. Rebuttals are considered the creative stage of the dialogic argumentation and need to be facilitated by suitable tools. By engaging in this activity, students “shift” from personal understanding of a subject to a wider understanding, by comparing the points of view of all group members. Step 4: Individual writing of a final position paper (essay). Once all contributions are made, each student produces a final position paper giving a consistent account of the “pros” and “cons” which have emerged from the debate. Alternation of individual and collaborative steps aims to give each student the chance to work out his/her own ideas while taking advantage of the multiple points of view and data contributed by the whole class. At the same time, each student is compelled to fully engage in the activity since he/she is responsible for his/her final production. This structure of the WikiDiA conceptual architecture was worked out on the basis of the case studies which had been developed, extracting from each of them the features that appeared most conducive to good argumentation.
Conclusions This chapter has examined current practice in promoting the learning of argumentation in university courses. Emphasis has been placed on wiki-based environment development aimed at facilitating students’ understanding of, and increased competency in, argumentation applied to a specific domain. This advance mainly resulted from the richness of the argumentative network, which in turn stemmed from the articulation and quality of its various nodes: students had created a permanent, browsable network of about 110 nodes. From a qualitative perspective, positive teacher ratings of student performance also confirmed this result. Another encouraging outcome was the good level of satisfaction that the majority of students (over 70%) expressed both for the learning experience in itself and for the specific support offered by the wiki environment. All participants engaged in argumentative knowledge construction, mostly concentrating on the collaborative realm, i.e. adding ‘pieces’ of knowledge to others’ arguments (known as ‘conjunctive argument’). A conceptual architecture (WikiDiA) was proposed which was suitable for exploiting such wiki-based environments to support the collaborative construction of argumentative knowledge in learning environments. This architecture offers academics and researchers informative guidance for teaching effective argumentation skills to undergraduate and postgraduate students using wiki environments. On the evidence of the present findings, it might be useful in future research to apply the conceptual architecture proposed here to a variety of learning situations (e.g. in continuing professional development courses) on different topics (e.g. Educational Sciences), so as to ascertain its range of applicability and effectiveness. A complementary meaningful issue to be tackled is how to help students improve the quality of their argumentative productions, exploiting the availability of wiki-history by means of meta-cognitive reasoning on their development. To further support students’ self-improvement, the functionalities of wiki
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
23
environments could be augmented by means of tools for representing the reticular structure of the arguments produced and data collected “at a glance”.
Acknowledgments The work reported in this chapter was carried out at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Informatics and supported by the Faculty of Humanities. The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Prof. Andrew Howes, Dr. Sri Kurniawan and Dr. Victor Gonzales to the project and to thank the other university staff members and all students who took part in it.
REFERENCES Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in Higher Education. NY: Routldge. ISBN 9780415995016. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 443-460). New York: Cambridge University Press. Andriessen, J., Baker, M. and Suthers D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Accademic Publisher. Astleitner, H., Brunken, R. and Leutner, D. (2003). The quality of instructional materials for argumentative knowledge construction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(1), 3–11. Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker and D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. (Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist). Austin and London: University of Texas Press. Bocconi, S. (2010). Argumentative knowledge construction in Higher Education. A wikibased approach to argumentation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Cà Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy. Bouyias, Y.N., Demetriadis, S.N. and Tsoukalas, I.A. (2007). Scripting argumentation in technology-enhanced learning: a proposed system architecture. In K. Boyanov, R. Nikolov, I. Nikolova, and M. Nisheva (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd Balkan Conference on Informatics (BCI’07), (pp. 337-348). Sofia: Demetra Ltd. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chinn, C. A. and Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623– 654. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. Ebner, M., Kickmeier-Rust, M. and Holzinger, A. (2008). Utilizing wiki-systems in higher education classes: A chance for universal access? Universal Access in the Information Society, 7(4), 199-207.
24
Stefania Bocconi
Felton, M. and Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153. Forte, A. and Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text: wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning. Proceedings of OOPSLA/ACM International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym), Montreal, Canada. Fountain, R. (2005). Wiki Pedagogy, Dossiers technopédagogiques http://www.profetic.org/ dossiers/spip.php?rubrique110. Guzdial, M., Rick, J. and Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created collaborative activities in higher education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 265279. Hampel, T., Selke, H. and Vitt, S. (2005). Deployment of simple user-centered collaborative technologies in educational institutions. Experiences and requirements. Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprise (WETICE’05) (pp. 207-214), Linköping, Sweden. Hewings, A., Coffin, C. and North, S. (2006). Supporting undergraduate students’ acquisition of academic argumentation strategies through computer conferencing. The Higher Education Academy. Joiner R. and Jones S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking, International Journal of Educational Research, 39 861–871. Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71, 1347-1366. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–25. Leitão, S. (2000). The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building. Human Development, 43, 332-360. Marttunen, M. and Laurinen, L. (1999). Learning of argumentation in face-to-face and e- mail environments. In F.H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and C.A. Willard, eds, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 552–558). Amsterdam: Sic Sat, International Centre for the Study of argumentation. Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: a classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329. Mitchell, S. and Andrews, R. (Eds.) (2000). Learning to argue in higher education. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann/Boynton-Cook. Muller Mirza, N. and Perret-Clermont, N. (Eds) (2009). Argumentation and Education: Theoretical foundations and Practice. NY: Springer. ISBN 9780387981246. Notari, M. (2006). How to use a Wiki in education: Wiki based effective constructive learning. Proceedings of WikiSym‘06—2006 International Symposium on Wikis 2006 (pp. 131–132). Parker, K. R. and Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching Tool. Interdisciplinary. Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57–72.
A Conceptual Architecture for Wiki-Based Learning Processes …
25
Plourde, M. (2008). Wikis in Higher Education. An exploratory report about the value of wikis in higher education, from a faculty perspective. University of Delaware, http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training/printable/wiki/Wikis_in_Higher_Education_UD.pdf. Pontecorvo, C. and Pirchio, S. (2000). A Developmental View on Children's Arguing: The Need of the Other. Human Development, 43, 361-363. Resnick, L.B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C.M., Wathen, S.H. and Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3), 347-364. Rick, J. and Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 89–115. Riddle, M. (Ed.) (1997). The quality of argument: colloquium on issues of teaching and learning in higher education. Middlesex University School of Lifelong Learning and Education. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Reference, USA. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schaffert, S., Gruber, A. and Westenthaler, R. (2006). A semantic wiki for collaborative knowledge formation. In S. Reich, G. Güntner, T. Pellegrini, A. and Wahler (Eds.), Semantic Content Engineering. Austria: Trauner Verlag. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N. and McLaren, B.M. (2010). Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State of the Art. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43-102. Schwarz, B. B. and Glassner, A. (2007). Designing CSCL argumentative environments for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Säljö (Ed.), Information and Communication Technology and Transformation of Learning Practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Stein, N. L. and Albro, E. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32, 113–133. Suthers, D. (2006). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 1(2), 1-28. Swan K., Shen J. and Hiltz S.R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 10. Tan, S.C., Hung, D. and Scardamalia M. (2006). Education in the Knowledge Age. Engaging Learners through knowledge building. In D. Hung and M.S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies (pp. 91-106). Netherlands: Springer. Terenzini, P.T., Spinger, L., Pascarella, E.T. and Nora A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36, 23– 39. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Updated ed. (1964). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 43-55. Verheij, B. (2003). Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150, 291–324.
26
Stefania Bocconi
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1934). Weinberger, A. and Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46, 71-95. Weinberger, A., Sampson, V., Jaspers, J. and Fisher, F. (2006). Argumentative knowledge construction in CSCL. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences ICLS '06 (pp. 1094-1100). Weng C. and Gennari J.H. (2004). Asynchronous collaborative writing through annotations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 6, 578–581. Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 203– 228.
