Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we present findings on moderation of synchronous, small-group argumentation in blended, co-located learning environments. Drawing on findings from the literature on human facilitation of dialogue in face-to-face settings, we first elaborate on the potential promise of this new practice. However, little is known about what constitutes effective human facilitation in synchronous e-discussions. A multi-method exploratory approach was then adopted to provide first insights into some of the difficulties and characteristics of moderation in these settings. To this end, we focused on (1) students’ perspectives on what constitutes effective e-moderation of synchronous peer argumentation in classrooms and (2) the relations between characteristics of actual and perceived moderation effectiveness. The analyses presented in this paper reveal that the role of the e-moderator in synchronous peer discussions is a complex one and that expectations from e-moderators seem at times even contradictory. Also, comparisons with findings on moderation in other communication formats (e.g., asynchronous, face-to-face) show that insights on effective instructional practices in these formats cannot be simply transferred to synchronous communication formats. We close this paper by briefly describing a tool that provides real-time support for e-moderators of synchronous group discussions, and whose development had been sparked by these findings in a further cycle of our design research program. Several questions and hypotheses are articulated to be investigated in future research, both with these new tools and in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Students' personal evaluations of the moderator in their session will be discussed in part II of this paper, and are, therefore, not presented here.

References

  • Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. E. B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In A.-N. Perret-Clermont & N. Muller-Mirza (Eds.), Argumentation and education—theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145–176). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Eisenmann, T. (2009). Online and face-to-face discussions in the classroom: A study on the experiences of ‘active’ and ‘silent’ students. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 132–136).

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 373–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interaction in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 15, 22–30. Available [Online]: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning, and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 33, 301–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 365–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collison, G., Elbaum, G., Haavind, S., & Tinher, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning—effective strategies for moderators. Madison: Atwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condon, S. L., & Cech, C. G. (1996). Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interactions. Electronic Journal of Communication/La revue électronique de communication 6(3), Retrieved on July 16, 2009, from http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v6n396.htm

  • Cress, U., Kimmerle, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2009). Impact of temporal extension, synchronicity, and group size on computer-supported information exchange. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 731–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, R., Drachman, R., Hever, R., Schwarz, B. B., Hoppe, U., Harrer, A., et al. (2007). Computer supported moderation of e-discussions: The ARGUNAUT approach. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2007 (Vol. 8, pp. 165–167).

  • De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, P. (2007). Online teaching in networked communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denise, B., Watland, P., Pirotte, S., & Verday N. (2004). Roles and competencies of the e-tutor. Proceedings of the 2004 Networked Learning Conference. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from: http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/contents.htm

  • De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Gijselaers, W. J., Moust, J. H. C., De Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2002). Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: Conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Medical Teacher, 2, 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, J., Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2007). Intuitive moderation styles and beliefs of teachers in CSCL-based argumentation. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2007 (Vol. 8, pp. 219–229).

  • Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity in Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38, 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlapanis, G., Kordaki, M., & Dimitrikapoulou, A. (2006). Successful e-courses: The role of synchronous communication and e-moderation via chat. Campus-wide Information Systems, 23, 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1, 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, U., de Groot, R., & Hever, R. (2009). Collaboration and awareness technologies in the classroom: Technical and pedagogical aspects of integration. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 130–142). New York: Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C. (2009). Expert support for group work in elementary science: The role of consensus. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction. New perspectives in learning and instruction (pp. 93–105). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, S., & O’Donnell, G. (1999). The cognitive skill of coaching collaboration. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL'99) (pp. 291–299). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Ilomaki, L., Niemiverta, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Approaches for analyzing tutors’ role in a networked inquiry discourse. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 389–396). Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute.

  • Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lentell, H., & O’Rourke, J. (2004). Tutoring large numbers: An unmet challenge. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 5. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/171/253

  • Lim, C. P., & Cheah, P. T. (2003). The role of the tutor in asynchronous discussion boards: A case study of a pre-service teacher course. Educational Media International, 40(1–2), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, K. (2004). Human support in CSCL: What, for whom and by whom? In J.-W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirshner, R. L. Martens, & P. Dillenbourg (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, CSCL (Vol. 3, pp. 167–198). Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvin, L. E. (1995). Spoof, spam, lurk and lag: The aesthetics of text-based virtual realities. The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2), retrieved on May 17, 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue2/marvin.html.

  • Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Eds.). (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (in press). Supporting collaborative learning and e-Discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED).

  • McPherson, M., & Nunes, M. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of online learning support. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved April 24 2010 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Maggie_MsP.html

  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instruction and need for cognition in interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packham, G., Jones, P., Thomas, B., & Miller, C. (2006). Student and tutor perspectives of on-line moderation. Education & Training, 48(4), 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom—the realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. Elementary School Journal, 107, 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning on-line. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G., & Giles, K. (1997). Training virtual management teachers. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Available online at http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/1997/salmon/virtual.pdf.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, K. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (in press). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences.

  • Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two “wrongs” may make a right...If they argue together! Cognition & Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Gil, J. (2009). Human guidance of synchronous e-discussions: The effects of different moderation scripts on peer argumentation. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 497–506).

  • Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 421–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A., Thomson, J. A., Foot, H. C., Whelan, K., Morrison, S., & McLaren, B. (2005). The effects of adult guidance and peer discussion on the development of children’s representations: Evidence from the training of pedestrian skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 181–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning & Instruction, 10, 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 172–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., et al. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 360–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (1996). Using computers to help coach exploratory talk across the curriculum. Computers & Education, 26, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., et al. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54, 613–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper was conducted within the framework of the ARGUNAUT project, which was funded by the European Community (IST-2005-027728). We would like to thank Maria Mishenkina and Julia Gil for coordinating data collection and coding procedures and Reuma de Groot, Rakheli Hever, Raul Drachman, and three anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier drafts of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel

    Christa S. C. Asterhan & Baruch B. Schwarz

  2. Learning Research & Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara st, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Christa S. C. Asterhan

Authors
  1. Christa S. C. Asterhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baruch B. Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christa S. C. Asterhan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Asterhan, C.S.C., Schwarz, B.B. Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. Computer Supported Learning 5, 259–282 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2

Keywords