Omid Noroozi

Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL

Learning to argue is prerequisite to solving complex problems in groups, especially when they are multidisciplinary and collaborate online. Environments for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) can be designed to facilitate argumentative knowledge construction. This study investigates how argumentative knowledge construction in multidisciplinary CSCL groups can be facilitated with a transactive discussion script. The script prompts learners to paraphrase, criticize, ask meaningful questions, construct counterarguments, and propose argument syntheses. As part of a laboratory experiment, 60 university students were randomly assigned to multidisciplinary dyads based on their disciplinary backgrounds (i.e. water management or international development studies). These dyads were randomly assigned to a scripted (experimental) or non-scripted (control) condition. They were asked to analyse, discuss, and solve an authentic problem case related to both of their domains, i.e. applying the concept of community-based social marketing in fostering sustainable agricultural water management. The results showed that the transactive discussion script facilitates argumentative knowledge construction during discourse. Furthermore, learners assigned to the scripted condition acquired significantly more domain-specific and domain-general knowledge on argumentation than learners assigned to the unscripted condition. We discuss how these results advance research on CSCL scripts and argumentative knowledge construction.

Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts

Knowledge sharing and transfer are essential for learning in groups, especially when group members have different disciplinary expertise and collaborate online. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environments have been designed to facilitate transactive knowledge sharing and transfer in collaborative problem-solving settings. This study investigates how knowledge sharing and transfer can be facilitated using CSCL scripts supporting transactive memory and discussion in a multidisciplinary problem-solving setting. We also examine the effects of these CSCL scripts on the quality of both joint and individual problem-solution plans. In a laboratory experiment, 120 university students were randomly divided into pairs based only on their disciplinary backgrounds (each pair had one partner with a background in water management and one partner with a background in international development studies). These dyads were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions: transactive memory script, transactive discussion script, both scripts, or no scripts (control). Learning partners were asked to analyze, discuss, and solve an authentic problem that required knowledge of both their domains, i.e., applying the concept of community-based social marketing in fostering sustainable agricultural water management. The results showed interaction effects for the transactive memory and discussion scripts on transactive knowledge sharing and transfer. Furthermore, transactive memory and discussion scripts individually, but not in combination, led to better quality demonstrated in both joint and individual problem solutions. We discuss how these results advance the research investigating the value of using scripts delivered in CSCL systems for supporting knowledge sharing and transfer.

The current status of teaching staff innovation competence in Ugandan universities: perceptions of managers, teachers, and students

How competent are university teaching staff to deliver effectively their present and future university duties in Uganda? This question was explored in this study by collecting data from managers (n = 90), teachers (n = 126), and students (n = 179) through a questionnaire administered at Kyambogo University. The results show that teacher performance in the role of innovating; knowledge society facilitating; collaborating and networking; higher education designing and developing; and entrepreneurship, could not be considered as satisfactory. It was also established that there are significant differences in the perception of the aforesaid among the respondent categories. The findings suggest that urgent intervention is needed to develop teacher innovation competence if Uganda wants to have an effective higher education. This study also highlights the centrality of using various internal key stakeholders in the educational system such as students and educational managers if effective teacher performance evaluation is to be attained in universities.

Software Tools for Scaffolding Argumentation Competence Development

Argumentation is significant to vocational, professional and higher education due to the importance of discourse in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and its application in handling complex and societal issues in the third millennium. In real-world settings, building arguments, constructing counter-arguments and exploring the dialogical space of solutions are shaped in the daily social conversation and also in various social networking sites. However, the ill-defined nature of argumentation makes it difficult for learners to follow a set of strict rules and unbending laws on constructing arguments and responding to counter-arguments in order to gain and construct knowledge, reject false viewpoints, refine and modify claims and eliminate misunderstandings and misconceptions about the issue at stake. To cope with this, various software tools have been introduced and developed to help students practise and learn real-world competence of argumentation. The most recent approach is the use of computer-supported tools, such as representational guidance tools, digital dialogue games and micro- and macro-scripting approaches to scaffold argumentation and support the building, representing and sharing of arguments with the aim of learning. This chapter illustrates these software tools and explains how and when each of them could be used, and under which conditions, to optimally scaffold argumentation in vocational, professional and higher education.

The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology

Abstract The present study investigated the effects of an online learning environment supported with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. As part of a bigger project, a pre- and post-test study design was used with 45 bachelor students who were randomly grouped in pairs. Students were asked to analyse a case and write an argumentative essay taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified organisms. The results showed that the combination of worked examples and peer feedback improve the quality of argumentative essay writing and facilitate the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge. Implications, suggestions, and future research are discussed.

The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning

Abstract Although the importance of students’ argumentative peer feedback for learning is undeniable, there is a need for further empirical evidence on whether and how it is related to various aspects of argumentation-based learning namely argumentative essay writing, domain-specific learning, and attitudinal change while considering their epistemic beliefs which are known to be related to argumentation. In this study, a pre-test–post-test design was conducted with 42 higher education students who were asked to write an argumentative essay on the GMOs, engage in argumentative feedback, and revise their essay. The results showed that argumentative peer feedback improves students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific learning. Furthermore, argumentative peer feedback caused attitudinal change. However, findings did not prove any impact of students’ epistemic beliefs on argumentation-based learning. This is against broadly shared theoretical assumption that argumentation-based learning is related to students’ epistemic beliefs. We discuss these results and provide an agenda for future work.