Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Investigating the effects of prompts on argumentation style, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning

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

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of task-level versus process-level prompts on levels of perceived and objective consensus, perceived efficacy, and argumentation style in the context of a computer-supported collaborative learning session using Interactive Management (IM), a computer facilitated thought and action mapping methodology. Four groups of undergraduate psychology students (N = 75) came together to discuss the negative consequences of online social media usage. Participants in the task-level group received simple, task-level prompts in relation to the task at hand, whereas the process-level group received both task-level prompts and more specific, and directed, process-level prompts. Perceived and objective consensus were measured before the IM session, and were measured again, along with perceived efficacy of the collaborative learning methodology, after the IM session. Results indicated that those in the process-level prompt groups scored significantly higher on perceived consensus and perceived efficacy of the IM methodology after the session. Analysis of the group dialogue using the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme revealed significant differences between experimental conditions in the style of argumentation used, with those in the process-level prompt groups exhibiting a greater range of argumentation codes. Results are discussed in light of theory and research on instructional support and facilitation in computer-supported collaborative learning.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

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

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberts, H. (1992). Acquisition: past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FL.

  • Alvero, A., Bucklin, B., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings (1985–1998). Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(1), 3–30. doi:10.1300/J075v21n01_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1958). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 259–282. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K., and Séjourné, A. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0195-2_4.

  • Balcazar, F. E., Shupert, M. K., Daniels, A. C., Mawhinney, T. C., & Hopkins, B. O. (1989). An objective review and analysis of 10 years of publication in the journal of organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 10(1), 7–38. doi:10.1300/J075v10n01_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, S. H., & Conlon, E. J. (1994). Effects of distribution of feedback in work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 641–655. doi:10.2307/256703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–43. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. J., Gronewold, K., & Western, K. (2012). Intergroup argumentation in city government decision making: The Wal-Mart dilemma. Small Group Research, 43(5), 87–612. doi:10.1177/1046496412455435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environment for science education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J. (1995a). Collective design of the future: Structural analysis of tribal vision statements. American Indian Quarterly, 19(2), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J. (1995b). The role of facilitated group process in community-based planning and design: Promoting greater participation in Comanche tribal governance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 27–52). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23(2), 216–236. doi:10.1177/1046496492232005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J., & Christakis, A. N. (1988). A culturally-sensitive approach to tribal governance issue management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(2), 107–123. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(88)90043-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(3), 217–234. doi:10.1108/eb022700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26(1), 25–55. doi:10.1177/1046496495261002.

    Article  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 (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canary, D. J., Brossmann, B. G., & Siebold, D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53(1), 18–37. doi:10.1080/10417948709372710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4(1), 53–58. doi:10.1002/sres.3850040107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coke, J. G., & Moore, C. M. (1981). Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In S. W. Burks & J. F. Wolf (Eds.), Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and methods (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbeq, A. L., Van De Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denson, R. W. (1981). Team training: Literature review and annotated bibliography. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewett, T. (2003). Towards an interactionist theory of group-level feedback. Management Research News, 26(10–11), 1–21. doi:10.1108/01409170310784041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, T. L., & McIntyre, R. M. (1997). A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 19–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, N. and Harskamp, E. G. (2009). Gender difference in students’ cognitive representations during collaborative problem-solving in physics. International Journal of Science Education. Retrieved May 2nd, 2015 from: https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14562479/Chapter%205.

  • Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple episode protocol analysis. (Version 4.10). [Software] Available from http://edugate.fss.uu.nl/mepa/.

  • Fahy, P. (2002). Use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in computer conference. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5–22. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1601_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahy, P. (2003). Indicators of support in online interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1). Retrieved May 2nd, 2015 from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/129/600.

  • Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. D., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamlem, S. M., & Munthe, E. (2014). Mapping the quality of feedback to support students’ learning in lower secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(1), 75–92. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.855171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gan, M. J., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9319-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38. doi:10.1007/BF02504515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Ainsworth, S., & O’Malley, C. (2011). Guided reciprocal questioning to support children’s collaborative storytelling. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 577–600. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9129-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber, J. (1993). Question asking during tutoring and in the design of educational software. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive foundations of instruction (pp. 149–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38(2), 275–291. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00547.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1884–1892. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 517–532. doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9202-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Boulder, Colarado. doi:10.1.1.16.9070.

  • Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085–1109. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1085::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-D.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, M. J., Harney, O. M., & Broome, B. (2014). Integrating argument mapping with systems thinking tools - advancing applied systems science. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 401–421). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, M.J., Harney, O. M., & Broome, B. (2015). Catalyzing Collaborative Learning and Collective Action for Positive Social Change through Systems Science Education. In, R. Wegerif, J. Kaufman, & L. Li (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking (pp. 441–456). Oxford: Routledge.

  • Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to overcome learning-strategy deficits. Learning and Instruction, 20, 18–29. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? The antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the big five. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 245–358. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenworthy, J. B., & Miller, N. (2001). Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 597–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelaar, E., Den Brok, P., Beijaard, D., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the coaching role in secondary vocational education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 64(3), 295–315. doi:10.1080/13636820.2012.691534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning through guided student- generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 111–126. doi:10.3102/00028312027004664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144–157). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance. A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, U. M., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 158–170. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A, & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments. Educational Technology and Society, 5(1), 8–22. doi:10.1.1.95.4422.

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mento, A., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966–1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 52–83. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(87)90045-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65(4), 261–281. doi:10.1080/03637759809376454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 116I, 7–27. doi:10.1002/tl.330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 310–335. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & de Pietro, J.-F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 247–272. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, D. A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of the experimental research. Organisation Behaviour and Human Performance, 23(3), 309–338. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(79)90001-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubert, M. J. (1998). The value of feedback and goal setting over goal setting alone and potential moderators of this effect: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 11(4), 321–335. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1104_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolucci, M., Suthers, D. D., and Weiner, A. (1995, May). Belvédère: stimulating students’ critical discussion. Paper presented at The Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colarado. doi:10.1145/223355.223461.

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L., Sommer, S. M., Morris, A., & Frideger, M. (1992). A configurational approach to interpersonal relations: Profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence. Irvine: Graduate School of Management, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321–326. doi:10.1037/h0036660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.

  • Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Fostering argumentation in social and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336. doi:10.1177/1046496407301966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, M., & Cope, D. (1993). Angle and rotation: Effects of different types of feedbacks on the quality of response. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 163–176. doi:10.1007/BF01273690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, K., & Louw, J. (2009). The feminization of psychology: Data from South Africa. International Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 81–92. doi:10.1080/00207590701436736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., McLaughlin, M., & Osborne, K. (1997). Conduct controls on usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4), 0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00197.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2010). Guiding group cognition in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 255–258. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9091-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2015). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of CSCL to the learning sciences. In M. Evans, M. Packer, & K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences: Past, present, and future. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, R., Puhl, T., & Krause, U.-M. (2009). Improving scientific argumentation skills by a problem-based learning environment: Effects of an elaboration tool and relevance of student characteristics. Evaluation and Research in Education, 22(1), 51–68. doi:10.1080/09500790903082362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, C. E., Hickendorff, M., Resing, W. C., Heiser, W. J., & de Boeck, P. A. (2013). Explanatory item response modeling of children’s change on a dynamic test of analogical reasoning. Intelligence, 41(3), 157–168. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (Eds.). (2004). What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education. Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House Trade.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science, 39(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34(2–3), 1–22. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00050-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (2006). An introduction to systems science. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J., & Cardenas, R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 239–261. doi:10.3102/01623737017002239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, Y., Looi, C. K., & Chen, W. (2015). Appropriation of a representational tool in a second-language classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 77–108. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9208-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, A. W. (2009). Means vs. Ends: Implications of process and outcome focus for team adaptation and performance. Organization Science, 20(3), 500–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Owen M. Harney, Michael J. Hogan, Tony Hall & Cormac Ryan

  2. Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Benjamin Broome

Authors
  1. Owen M. Harney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Broome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tony Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cormac Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Owen M. Harney.

Appendix

Appendix

Perceived efficacy of Interactive Management

  1. 1)

    I believe that Interactive Management can be used to solve problems effectively

___Strongly Disagree___Disagree___Neutral___Agree___Strongly Agree

  1. 2)

    I believe that Interactive Management can be used to help a group achieve consensus about a problem

___Strongly Disagree___Disagree___Neutral___Agree___Strongly Agree

  1. 3)

    I would use Interactive Management to structure my thoughts in the future

___Strongly Disagree___Disagree___Neutral___Agree___Strongly Agree

  1. 4)

    I would recommend Interactive Management to others as a problem solving tool

___Strongly Disagree___Disagree___Neutral___Agree___Strongly Agree

  1. 5)

    I think more working groups around the world should use Interactive Management to solve problems

___Strongly Disagree___Disagree___Neutral___Agree___Strongly Agree

  1. 6)

    I think there are some problems that Interactive Management will not help to resolve

___Strongly Disagree___Disagree___Neutral___Agree___Strongly Agree

  1. 7)

    I don’t think Interactive Management will help all groups to achieve consensus – there are some problems that are too difficult

___Strongly Disagree___Disagree___Neutral___Agree___Strongly Agree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harney, O.M., Hogan, M.J., Broome, B. et al. Investigating the effects of prompts on argumentation style, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 10, 367–394 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9223-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9223-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation