Mapping Children's Discussions of Evidence in Science to Assess Collaboration and Argumentation

The research reported in this paper concerns the development of children's skills of interpreting and evaluating evidence in science. Previous studies have shown that school teaching often places limited emphasis on the development of these skills, which are necessary for children to engage in scientific debate and decision-making. The research, undertaken in the UK, involved four collaborative decision-making activities to stimulate group discussion, each was carried out with five groups of four children (10-11 years old). The research shows how the children evaluated evidence for possible choices and judged whether their evidence was sufficient to support a particular conclusion or the rejection of alternative conclusions. A mapping technique was developed to analyse the discussions and identify different "levels" of argumentation. The authors conclude that suitable collaborative activities that focus on the discussion of evidence can be developed to exercise children's ability to argue effectively in making decisions

Collaborative Training With a More Experienced Partner: Remediating Low Pretraining Self-Efficacy in Complex Skill Acquisition

Objective: This study examined the effectiveness of collaborative training for individuals with low pretraining self-efficacy versus individuals with high pretraining selfefficacy regarding the acquisition of a complex skill that involved strong cognitive and psychomotor demands. Background: Despite support for collaborative learning from the educational literature and the similarities between collaborative learning and interventions designed to remediate low self-efficacy, no research has addressed how selfefficacy and collaborative learning interact in contexts concerning complex skills and human-machine interactions. Method: One hundred fifty-five young male adults trained either individually or collaboratively with a more experienced partner on a complex computer task that simulated the demands of a dynamic aviation environment. Participants also completed a task-specific measure of self-efficacy before, during, and after training. Results: Collaborative training enhanced skill acquisition significantly more for individuals with low pretraining self-efficacy than for individuals with high pretraining self-efficacy. However, collaborative training did not bring the skill acquisition levels of those persons with low pretraining self-efficacy to the levels found for persons with high pretraining self-efficacy. Moreover, tests of mediation suggested that collaborative training may have enhanced appropriate skill development strategies without actually raising self-efficacy. Conclusion: Although collaborative training can facilitate the skill acquisition process for trainees with low self-efficacy, future research is needed that examines how the negative effects of low pretraining self-efficacy on complex skill acquisition can be more fully remediated. Application: The differential effects of collaborative training as a function of self-efficacy highlight the importance of person analysis and tailoring training to meet differing trainee needs.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Socially-augmented argumentation tools: rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard

Collaborative Computer-Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV) is a technical methodology that offers support for online collective deliberation over complex dilemmas. As compared with more traditional conversational technologies, like wikis and forums, CCSAV is designed to promote more critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, by using representations that highlight conceptual relationships between contributions, and through computational analytics that assess the structural integrity of the network. However, to date, CCSAV tools have achieved adoption primarily in small-scale educational contexts, and only to a limited degree in real world applications. We hypothesise that by reifying conversations as logical maps to address the shortcomings of chronological streams, CCSAV tools underestimate the importance of participation and interaction in enhancing collaborative knowledge-building. We argue, therefore, that CCSAV platforms should be socially augmented in order to improve their mediation capability. Drawing on Clark and Brennan’s influential Common Ground theory, we designed a Debate Dashboard, which augmented a CCSAV tool with a set of widgets that deliver meta-information about participants and the interaction process. An empirical study simulating a moderately sized collective deliberation scenario provides evidence that this experimental version outperformed the control version on a range of indicators, including usability, mutual understanding, quality of perceived collaboration, and accuracy of individual decisions. No evidence was found that the addition of the Debate Dashboard impeded the quality of the argumentation or the richness of content

Blogging as community of practice: lessons for academic development?

As practices and expectations around doctoral writing continue to change, so too do the demands on academic developers and learning advisors. Social media is increasingly playing a role in doctoral education, just as it is in higher education more generally. This paper explores a blog initiated in 2012 to inform and support doctoral writing; since its inception, it has grown to include diverse and overlapping communities of academic developers, language and literacy specialists, supervisors, and students with shared interests in doctoral writing. This case study reflects on our experiences of entering the online environment through the lens of connectivist learning, noting the practices and communities that have been established, and the blog’s positioning in relation to our formal roles within universities. We consider how blogging relates to our work as academic developers. Details of our experiences, with our analysis and reflection of them, can inform other academic developers seeking to engage in social media networks as part of their working lives

Online collaboration and cooperation : the recurring importance of evidence, rationale and viability

This paper investigates collaboration in teaching and learning and draws out implications for the promotion of collaboration within online environments. It is divided into four sections. First the case for collaboration, including specifically cooperative approaches, is explored. This case revolves around the impact of collaboration on the quality of learning and on learning outcomes. Collaboration is seen as constrained by context but, if structured and rewarded, it will bring important motivational and cognitive benefits. Next, the case for online collaboration is examined. This is based on longstanding arguments about the benefits of working together albeit in an environment which offers greater reach; a mix of media; and archives of interaction. The third section of the paper compares perspectives on online collaboration with a longer tradition of research into collaboration in general; it critiques the idea that online mediation offers a paradigm change in teaching and learning. The fourth section of the paper considers future directions for promoting online collaboration