Online moderation of small-group discussions : The case of synchronous e-argumentation in a diagram-based discussion space

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 emoderation 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. Research on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is deeply rooted in constructivism. It intensively focuses on how productive peer collaboration can be stimulated and sustained in computer-mediated environments and how these collaborative activities facilitate learning. Within the field of e-argumentation, for example, it has been found that providing sentence openers (Cho & Jonassen, 2002; Jeong & Joung, 2007), software-embedded collaboration scripts (e.g., Stegmann, Weinberger & Fischer, 2007), and representational guidance (Schwarz & Glassner, 2007; Suthers, 2003) may improve the quality of online argumentation. Others have argued that it is the medium itself that may facilitate important aspects of group argumentation (Asterhan & Eisenmann, 2009; Baker & Lund, 1997; Kim, Anderson, Nguyen-Yahiel & Archodidou, 2007). These include, among others, the increased explicitness (because of the persistence of textual messages on screen), more preciseness in articulating arguments (because of the lack of nonverbal communication cues), and more willingness to express alternative views and critique ideas (because of the decreased influence of social status). However, whereas important insights have been gained with regard to the effects of task and tool design on collaborative learning processes, the role of the human instructor in CSCL has not been considered with the same intensity as it could have been (McPherson & Nunes, 2004; Lentell & O’Rourke, 2004; Lund, 2004). In this paper, we focus on one particular aspect of this role, namely, online human moderation of synchronous peer discussions in co-located classroom settings. Computer-mediated discussions in co-located classrooms combine the aforementioned advantages of textual CMC with those of classroom settings, in which students and instructors not only share a physical space, but also a common set of behavioral norms and a common history. Recent research has shown that CMC in classrooms may offer several advantages, especially with regard to the socialinteractive aspects of classroom discussions (Asterhan & Eisenmann, 2009): When asked to compare their experiences with face-to-face (F2F) classroom discussions, students reported that student participation was more egalitarian, that they felt more comfortable to freely express their ideas, and that they engaged in more peer-to-peer interaction. In addition, they also reported experiencing much less classroom interruptions and disturbances in computer-mediated classroom discussions. The question is, however, how can teachers make sure that what goes on in the digital environments meets the intended educational goal of the activity? They may share a physical space, but unless they go online themselves, teachers will have little knowledge about the content of the discussions. Also, when they do go online, how could they best support their students’ efforts? We will show that the literature has, in fact, little to offer about what constitutes effective online human support of synchronous discussions. The necessary larger context of our investigation then concerns the literature on human facilitation of peer dialogue in other settings, such as in face-to-face interactions and in distant, asynchronous e-learning environments. We will, therefore, first present overviews of these two literatures and summarize their main findings on how to effectively support productive peer dialogue. We will then discuss in what ways these two settings are distinctively different from synchronous communication formats, and argue that these differences justify a separate investigation into human facilitation in synchronous formats. The overarching goal of the empirical studies presented in this paper is then to obtain first insights into online human guidance of synchronous small-group discussions and to compare these with the findings from the literature on face-to-face and asynchronous settings. Because of the embryonic state of this line of research, we will adopt an exploratory research approach and triangulate different research tools. Let us begin with what can be learned from human facilitation in face-to-face peer dialogues. Effective human facilitation of student reasoning in face-to-face settings: The power of generic, low-content scaffolding An increasing number of studies have found that the extent to which students learn from collaborative activities depends on the depth and the quality of the dialogue peers engage in. Dialogue moves that have been identified as predictors of individual learning gains include explaining ideas to others (Coleman, 1998), producing and receiving elaborated help (Webb, 2009; Webb & Palincsar, 1996), elaborating on each other’s ideas and problem solving (King & Rosenshine, 1993; van Boxtel, van der Linden, Kanselaar, 2000), and engaging in reasoned argumentation (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007, 2009; Chin & Osborne, 2010; de Vries, Lund & Baker, 2002; Schwarz, Neuman & Biezuner, 2000). However, groups do not necessarily engage in these types of dialogue without support (Webb, 2009). Among others, prior to the task, students should be prepared for collaborative work and given appropriate and explicit instructions (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; Chinn, Anderson & Waggoner, 2001; Gillies, 2003, 2004; Howe, 2009; Nussbaum, 2005; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2004; Reznitskaya, Anderson & Kuo, 2007). Moreover, task designs should be specifically structured to increase the likelihood that students engage in productive talk (e.g., Andriessen & Schwarz, 2009; King & Rosenshine, 1993; Palinscar & Brown, 1989). Many have recommended that, in addition to these, instructors should also monitor small-group dialogue during the collaborative tasks and intervene when necessary (Cohen, 1994; Tolmie, Thomson, Foot, Whelan, Morrison & McLaren, 2005; Webb, 2009). The question is, however, what type of human support during group work improves group functioning? Several recent studies seem to indicate that low-content teacher interventions that aim at eliciting student thinking are more effective in sustaining productive student dialogue than providing explicit, content-specific help explanations and instructions: For example, Web, Franke, Ing, Chan, De, Freund, and Battey (2008) found that such teacher interventions nearly always produced more student explaining and often resulted in better group performance. Similarly, Chiu (2004) found that providing low-content help and issuing few directives benefited student group performance, both in the presence of the teacher as well as after (s)he had left. Gillies (2004) trained teachers to implement cooperative learning techniques in the classroom. Several of these teachers also received additional training in specific communication skills to support productive group dialogue. For example, they were trained to probe student reasoning, to acknowledge and validate their ideas, and to offer suggestions in a tentative way. Her observations of teachers engaging with groups showed that the teachers who received the additional training actively scaffolded group performance and reasoning, whereas the other teachers were much more controlling, disciplining, and directive during children’s group work. The behavior of students in the former condition showed that they more often expanded on each others’ ideas, asked more questions, and exhibited greater learning gains than did the students of teachers who did not receive the communication skills training. These findings were replicated and extended in a follow-up study (Gillies, 2009). The importance of human support that focuses on eliciting student reasoning rather than providing direct expert feedback has also been emphasized in the literature on problem-based learning among adult medical students (e.g., Dolmans, Gijselaers, Moust, De Grave, Wolfhagen & van der Vleuten, 2002; Hmelo & Barrows, 2006). The findings on effective teacher support for peer-to-peer dialogue seem to corroborate with findings from the literature on two other forms of instructional discourse, namely, one-on-one tutoring and teacher-led classroom discourse: As for the first, Chi and colleagues have shown that tutoring styles that scaffold the tutee’s own reasoning and explanation are more effective to the learning process than are more "didactic" tutoring s