Reasoning, argumentative interaction and idea life cycles during group product ideation in higher education

Abstract. This study presents the analysis of the use of argument in group ideation process in higher education settings. The need for such analysis is dictated by the fact that students in higher education are one step away from joining wider professional communities, where the ability to engage in joint brainstorming and evaluating new products is in high demand. The study data consists of transcripts of ideation discussions of two groups of master’s degree students. The task for both groups was to imagine and formulate a future AI-based teaching/learning assistant, prepare a short verbal presentation of the product, and present it to the whole class. The analysis is arranged in three steps. First, frequency and quality of grounded claims is evaluated using Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern. Then, the type of talk is determined using the indicators of exploratory, cumulative and disputational talk (Mercer, 1996), the interplay between types of talk is examined. Finally, idea life cycles and reasoning behind idea demotion is investigated. The results indicate that 1) arguments are provided rarely, but when provided, most of them (2/3) are complete; 2) exploratory talk manifests mostly in elaborations on peers’ ideas, whereas reasoning (justifications) to own ideas and critical evaluation is less frequent; these factors characterise the discussions more as co-constructive interaction rather than exploratory talk; 3) dominance of elaborative comments on an idea leads to inclusion the idea in group solution; reasoning for idea demotion varies remarkably between the two groups (56% vs. 80%). These outcomes indicate that students might benefit from enhancing their reasoning to be ready for workplace ideation in groups. From task design view, clear product metrics should be set, and a line drawn between brainstorming and evaluation phase, to prevent unreasoned idea demoting in brainstorming and stimulate questioning and reasoning in evaluation

Designing Adaptive Instruction for Teams: a Meta-Analysis

The goal of this research was the development of a practical architecture for the computer-based tutoring of teams. This article examines the relationship of team behaviors as antecedents to successful team performance and learning during adaptive instruction guided by Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs). Adaptive instruction is a training or educational experience tailored by artificially-intelligent, computer-based tutors with the goal of optimizing learner outcomes (e.g., knowledge and skill acquisition, performance, enhanced retention, accelerated learning, or transfer of skills from instructional environments to work environments). The core contribution of this research was the identification of behavioral markers associated with the antecedents of team performance and learning thus enabling the development and refinement of teamwork models in ITS architectures. Teamwork focuses on the coordination, cooperation, and communication among individuals to achieve a shared goal. For ITSs to optimally tailor team instruction, tutors must have key insights about both the team and the learners on that team. To aid the modeling of teams, we examined the literature to evaluate the relationship of teamwork behaviors (e.g., communication, cooperation, coordination, cognition, leadership/coaching, and conflict) with team outcomes (learning, performance, satisfaction, and viability) as part of a large-scale meta-analysis of the ITS, team training, and team performance literature. While ITSs have been used infrequently to instruct teams, the goal of this meta-analysis make team tutoring more ubiquitous by: identifying significant relationships between team behaviors and effective performance and learning outcomes; developing instructional guidelines for team tutoring based on these relationships; and applying these team tutoring guidelines to the Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT), an open source architecture for authoring, delivering, managing, and evaluating adaptive instructional tools and methods. In doing this, we have designed a domain-independent framework for the adaptive instruction of teams

The Effects of Academically Productive Talk in Group Discourse in a Virtual Internship for Engineering

Skills associated with collaborative problem solving (CPS), especially in STEM-related disciplines, are increasingly regarded as essential for success in work and life. In the last decade, simulation-based games have emerged as rich environments for the situated learning of such skills, and are instrumental in the study of CPS because they provide rich data for detailed analysis of discourse and social interaction. One type of social interaction, Academically Productive Talk (APT), has been found to support collaborative activity, encourage knowledge integration, and promote academic gains for individuals. However, little is known about the relationship between APT and how groups develop complex STEM thinking. Additionally, despite evidence that students’ attitudes affect social interaction during collaborative activity, little is known about how collaborative social interaction may affect students’ attitudes. The primary goals of this study were to examine CPS discourse in order to: 1) investigate the relationship between the qualities and characteristics of how groups talk and what groups talk about; and 2) understand whether how groups talk effects a change in students’ attitudes. To meet these aims, this study paired conversation analysis with an innovative analytical methodology, Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA), to study groups’ endogenous use of APT and its relationship with substantive qualities of group discourse in the virtual simulation of professional practice in engineering, Nephrotex. This study presents empirical evidence that, (1) specific APT-style contributions were effective for introducing critical, domain-specific evidence into student discourse, and (2) more use of APT in group discourse resulted in better knowledge integration of human-centered design constraints (i.e., their client’s needs; their consultants’ interests) and data analysis. These findings varied in terms of how, when, and what type of, integration occurred. No evidence was found to suggest that students’ participation in groups that engage in more APT affects a positive change in their attitudes. A better understanding of the effects of APT in a simulation-based game environment can be used to inform the ongoing research and development of technologies capable of shaping and observing discourse as it occurs in virtual environments for learning, and that support students’ development of CPS skills