Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) often requires students to engage in asynchronous text-based argumentative discourses to acquire knowledge (Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). Argumentation has been assumed to have a positive link with individual knowledge construction (Stegmann & Fischer, 2011). Scholars have even suggested that “good argumentation means essentially good collaboration” (Bouyias & Demetriadis, 2012, p. 238). When students argue, they are forced to think about and express valid explanations, defend their own claims, and challenge those of the others (Bouyias & Demetriadis, 2012; Popov, Leeuwen, & Buis, 2017). Peers can bring in new perspectives to refine original arguments (Vogel et al., 2016), and the diversity present in group discussions provides an authentic opportunity to test individual ideas (Henri, 1992). Thus, having a peer may result in a natural context where a learner has to elaborate on their own reasoning (Teasley, 1997).
However, the skill of argumentation needs to be learned and practiced (Clark & Mayer, 2011). One of the common challenges in CSCL settings is learners failing to relate to each other’s contributions during the process of knowledge co-construction. This results in students bringing in individual contributions addressing the task without engaging in the processes of argumentation, negotiation, and integration of ideas. This is what CSCL researchers describe as a lack of transactivity. Transactivity here refers to students building on each other’s input in the process of discussion and argumentation, instead of providing scattered contributions to the task at hand. Without transactivity in student interactions, the potential of collaborative learning groups remains underutilized.
Reaching transactivity of CSCL discussions in the multicultural context can be even more challenging. Groups consisting of members with diverse cultural backgrounds have been found to consider different behaviors to be appropriate for the completion of common tasks (Dekker, Rutte, & Van den Berg, 2008) and have differences in their understanding of what CSCL processes entail (Popov, Noroozi et al., 2014). Heterogeneous groups can often be characterized by decentralized thinking and a high amount of misunderstandings. Multicultural groups also find it more challenging to agree on a general course of action (Popov, Noroozi, et al., 2014).
It has been demonstrated that teacher initiation (Tsai, 2010) or open-ended questioning from the instructor (Hull & Saxon, 2009) may help students acquire effective collaborative learning skills. Training learners to collaborate may also happen by exposing them to an elaborated worked-out collaboration example (Rummel & Spada, 2005). Finally, students’ argumentative knowledge construction can be supported by means of collaboration scripts – prompts that help students structure their interactions productively (Rummel & Spada, 2005). Such scripts can be introduced through explicit instruction by the teacher or integrated into the digital learning platform itself, for example in the form of textual prompts (Popov, Biemans, Kuznetsov, & Mulder, 2014). Scripts can be designed to foster transactive processes specifically (Vogel et al., 2016). In fact, it has been hypothesized that scripts that are not designed to foster transactivity may not be effective for collaborative learning (Vogel, Wecker, Kollar, & Fischer, 2017).