Inter-and intra-subjective planes of e-argumentation: motivation, self-perception, expectations, and actual interlocutory behavior

Research on learning and argumentation traditionally focuses on the (socio)cognitive dimensions and benefits of argumentative dialogue. The papers which are part of this symposium, however, present recent research on intra-personal, non-cognitive variables and how they affect or are affected by electronic collective argumentation. The data are obtained from both e-discussants as well as e-moderators and pertain to factors such as motivation, self-perception, role definitions and expectations. The three contributions provide information on these factors before, during and after e-discussions and help delving in the dynamics of (moderated) e-argumentation. Theories of collaborative learning and of communicative interaction are often used interchangeably to trace learning in and from dialogue. The kinds of interactional phenomena evoked by general theories of learning, such as "cooperation", "explanation", or "negotiation" are often diffuse and difficult to identify in real interactions. However, the planes of collaborative learning and communicative interaction are different. One should discern between dialogue analyses that reveal an inexorable intersubjectivity (e.g., Baker, 2003; Barth & Krabbe, 1982) to make communication possible and psychological processes that occur at the intra-subjective, individual level (such as arguments, values, opinions, motivations or beliefs). Terms such as “shared cognition” or “shared understanding” should be understood as pertaining to the plane of communicative interaction, as a state of inter-subjective rationality that enables exchange of ideas and joint elaboration of new ideas. Intrasubjective rationality pertains to the psychological plane, a plane which is necessary to apprehend collaborative learning. This symposium focuses on the role of non-cognitive, intra-subjective constructs in e-argumentation. We observe participants in e-argumentation (students and moderators) and try to detect their individual motivations, expectations, or beliefs in and from interaction. We show that what feeds the formation of intersubjectivity at the communication level is far from being uniform, shared by all: Intrinsic motivation can fluctuate and diverge among discussants, some may seek help from a moderator, moderators may use elusive tactics that make them appear as regular discussants, etceteras. The recognition of the interplay between these two planes is especially salient with environments that enable some of the participants (mainly moderators) to participate actively or as supervisors. The authors of the first presentation examine the commonly held assumption that collaborative learners becoming more similar over time, whereas this pertains to the views held by the different participants or their motivation to learn. In their case, they compared the extent of convergence among actual collaborators on different measures of motivation with that of nominal collaborators. Contrary to commonly held beliefs, their findings indicate that the motivation of learners in small ad-hoc online groups becomes less similar as a result of the interaction. The second presentation focuses on students’ expectations of on-line moderators of argumentative ediscussions and the perspectives. Based on data gathered from samples of secondary school and university students, the role of a teacher/tutor moderator of such discussion is not easily defined and at times even seems contradictory. In addition, the authors analyzed three moderated e-discussions in which moderators operated directly in the discussion space. They then related the nature of moderator interventions with students’ responsiveness during and their evaluation of the moderator following the discussion. These qualitative analyses reveal that generic interventions were not appreciated by discussants and neither were they effective in eliciting responses. In contrast, effective moderators disguised their moderation by using content-specific interventions that seemed to actively contribute to the discussion. The final presentation also focuses on moderation of e-argumentation, but from a different angle and by using different software. The authors present first results from research with an innovative system that supports moderators and their moderation practices. The particular design of this system supports a supervising style of moderation as opposed to more participative styles. Their results show that in spite of this, actual moderation of teachers was characterized by a participative style. Comparisons of measures of self-reported moderation styles and actual moderation furthermore reveal a discrepancy between how teachers view themselves as moderators and how they behave in real-time moderation. Motivational dynamics in online argumentation: Is there mutual influence of learning partners on their motivation over the course of a discussion? Armin Weinberger, Karsten Stegmann, Frank Fischer, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) München, Department of Psychology, Germany, Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Approaches to online argumentation and learning are often based on the assumption that learners are motivated or can be motivated to mutually support each other’s learning processes (cf. Cohen, 1994; Slavin, 1996). Moreover, collaborative learning is believed to generally have positive effects on emotional and motivational aspects of knowledge building (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 2002). Still, there are clear indications of specific motivational problems that cannot be regarded as individual, but as group phenomena, such as sucker effects or social loafing (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979; Robbins, 1995), and thus may lead to learners diverging regarding motivation and individual knowledge gains. Moreover, learners seem to have difficulties to engage in specific learning activities, such as constructing and exchanging arguments in online environments and often require some sort of scaffolding, such as collaboration scripts, which specify, sequence, and distribute roles and activities to learners with the goal of enabling them to participate in online argumentation (cf. Fischer, Kollar, Mandl, & Haake, 2007; O’Donnell, 1999). Scripts may be introduced by a teacher or represented within an online learning environment, e.g., through prompts. By rotating roles, scripts facilitate more and more equal participation in collaborative learning activities compared to unscripted collaborative learning (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984). However, scripts have been argued to have potentially detrimental effects on motivational aspects, such as intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and self-determination especially when script prescriptions interfere with learners’ own strategies (Cohen, 1994; Kollar, Fischer, & Slotta, 2007). Therefore we investigate first (RQ1), to what extent do collaboration scripts influence learners’ motivation and participation and the convergence / divergence of learners’ motivation and participation in online discussions? Furthermore, collaborative learning has been ascribed potential to facilitate homogeneous participation in learning processes (Cohen & Lotan, 1995). It could be argued that collaborative learners could thus benefit more equally and become more similar with respect to motivational outcomes and individual knowledge gains than individual learners. This could be particularly true for learners in online discussions, who could be supported by additional resources (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996) and for whom status effects could be equalled out (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991). There is some empirical evidence from classroom research, however, pointing towards the fact that learners within classes are becoming more and more dissimilar regarding knowledge and motivation (Merton’s Matthew-effect, 1968; Marsh’s big-fish-little-pond effect, 1987). So far, there is little research on how learners in ad-hoc online groups influence each other and converge or diverge regarding their motivation. We therefore also focus on the question (RQ2), to what extent (scripted and unscripted) learners in online discussions influence each other in terms of convergence or divergence of motivation and participation?