The Social Dimension of Learning through Argumentation: Effects of Human Presence and Discourse Style

Autor/inn/en	Asterhan, Christa S. C.; Babichenko, Miriam
Titel	The Social Dimension of Learning through Argumentation: Effects of Human Presence and Discourse Style
Quelle	In: Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (2015) 3, S.740-755 (16 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-0663
DOI	10.1037/edu0000014
Schlagwörter	Scientific Concepts; Discourse Analysis; Persuasive Discourse; Criticism; Computer Mediated Communication; Verbal Communication; Instructional Design; Learning Processes; Likert Scales; Undergraduate Students; Foreign Countries; Recall (Psychology); Interaction; Statistical Analysis; Israel + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Diskursanalyse; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Kritik; Computerkonferenz; Lesson concept; Lessonplan; Unterrichtsentwurf; Learning process; Lernprozess; Likert-Skala; Ausland; Abberufung; Interaktion; Statistische Analyse
Abstract	In spite of its potential for learning, and in particular knowledge revision, argumentation on science concepts is neither easily elicited nor easily sustained. Students may feel uneasy critiquing and being critiqued, especially on complex science topics. We report on a controlled study that tested the role of 2 potential factors that may either relieve or aggravate some of these concerns: the partner's argumentative discourse style (disputative or deliberative) and belief in interaction with a human or a computer agent. Learners interacted in scripted, computer-mediated interactions with a confederate on their understanding of a scientific concept they had just studied (i.e., diffusion). They were led to believe they were either interacting with a human peer or with a conversational peer agent. The peer confederate's verbal behavior was scripted to evoke argumentative discourse, while controlling for exposure to conceptual content and the type of dialogue moves, but differed in argumentative discourse style (disputative or deliberative). Results show that conceptual understanding of participants in the deliberative discourse style condition was higher than that in the disputative condition. Further, even though previous studies have reported that the belief in human interaction benefits learning in consensual interactions, the opposite was found to be true in a setting of disagreement and critique: Belief in interaction with a computer agent resulted in higher conceptual learning gains, compared to belief in interaction with a human peer. Implications for theory as well as instructional design are discussed. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01