CSCL에서 협력적 논증 스캐폴드의 제공이 학습자간 상호작용에 미치는 효과 = Effects of Scaffolds for Interaction in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구의 목적은 CSCL에서 협력적 논증 활동 시 학습자간 유의미한 상호작용 촉진을 위한 스캐폴드의 제공이 학습자간 상호작용에 미치는 영향을 알아보는데 있다. 이를 위하여 이론적 탐구를 통해 협력적 지식구축의 인식론적 기반을 바탕으로 협력적 논증의 절차와 구조화, 논증적 사고를 지원하는 스캐폴드의 원리를 도출하였으며, 이것이 협력적 논증 활동 시 학습자간 상호작용의 빈도와 상호작용의 유형에 미치는 효과를 검증해보고자 하였다. 연구 대상자는 청주에 위치한 S대학의 교직과목 수강생 102명으로, 서로 의견이 다른 2인이 1조가 되도록 총 51개 조로 구성되었다. 각 그룹은 협력적 논증 스캐폴드의 제공 유형에 따라 3집단으로 분류되었으며, 약 5주의 기간 동안 웹기반 실험환경에서 협력적 논증 활동에 참여하였다. 분석 결과, 전체 상호작용의 빈도수는 구조화된 협력적 논증 스캐폴드를 제공한 집단이 가장 높은 것으로 나타났다. 상호작용의 유형별 분석에서, '주장'과 '외재화' 유형의 상호작용 빈도는 논증 스캐폴드의 제공 유형에 따른 유의미한 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 '대안'과 '통합 합의' 유형의 상호작용 빈도는 3집단 간 모두 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 '답변'과 '빠른 합의' 유형의 상호작용 빈도는 구조화의 유무에 상관없이 협력적 논증 스캐폴드 제공 유무에 따른 유의미한 차이가 있었다. 반면에 '합의'와 '유도' 유형의 상호작용 빈도수는 구조화된 협력적 논증 스캐폴드를 지원하는 경우에만 유의미한 차이가 있었다. 마지막으로 '인지적 충돌에 의한 합의' 유형의 상호작용 빈도수는 스케폴드 제공의 유무에 상관없이 강제성을 부여한 구조화가 제공된 경우에만 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 학습자간 상호작용 과정에 대한 분석 결과는 협력적 논증 지원을 위한 스캐폴드가 상호작용 과정에서 학습자간 유의미한 상호작용을 촉진시키는데 효과가 있었음을 보여준다고 할 수 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of scaffolds that support collaborative argumentation activities between learners in CSCL (Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning). Collaborative argumentation in CSCL, whose objective is knowledge building refines the opinions and claims at the individual level and promotes critical thinking about the subject. Also, at the group level, it provides the opportunity for members to understand the domain knowledge from various perspectives by sharing knowledge and perspectives between them and to experience conceptual changes, which in turn contributes to building collaborative knowledge of the group. For this, learners participating in collaborative argumentation activities should experience critical argumentation and interact meaningfully.
This study considered the particularities of collaborate argumentation, the epistemological perspective, and the mechanism of building knowledge to support mutual interaction between learners in collaborative argumentation, whose purpose is knowledge building. Through this, the design principle of scaffolding that comprehensively supports the sequence of collaborative argumentation, structuring of single argumentation, and skills argumentative reasoning, was deduced. For a corroborative study on the effect of the developed scaffolds, this study composed and applied a CSCL environment, which is a specialized environment to support collaborative argumentation.
The research question is whether the form of scaffold offered to support meaningful interaction of collaborative argumentation between learners For this, the differences in the number of messages, and the form in the process of collaborative argumentation were analyzed.
This study concluded the following.
A comparison of the group that was structurally provided with the compulsory scaffolding (Test Gruop 2), the group that was provided scaffolding without a structure (Test Gruop 1), and the group that was provided with general argumentation scaffolding (control group) in order to promote interaction between learners in collaborative argumentation, showed that the average number of messages of Test Gruop 2 was meaningfully higher compared to other groups. But there was no significant difference between Test Gruop 1 and the control group.
An analysis of the procedural aspect of argumentation for an analysis of the forms of mutual interaction and an analysis of the forms of social interaction showed the following. First, there was no meaningful difference between the three groups in terms of the frequency of claims, and the frequency of externalization messages. On the other hand, there was a meaningful difference in between the frequency of counterarguments and the frequency of integration-oriented consensus building messages between all three groups depending on the existence or absence of scaffold offering for collaborative argumentation and the existence of absence of coercion (structuralization). Reply messages and quick consensus building messages all showed meaningful differences depending on the existence or absence of scaffold offering to support collaborative argumentation. There was no difference, however, according to the provision through structuralization of coercion. Also, consensus building messages, elicitation messages, and conflict-oriented consensus building messages all showed meaningful differences not in the provision or scaffolding during collaborative argumentation but in the degree of structuralization of coercion.
In conclusion, the scaffolding for collaborative argumentation provided in this study can be said to have an effect on promoting meaningful interaction between learners.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경
• 1. CSCL에서 인식론적 관점에 따른 협력적 논증 지원의 차이
• 2. 지식구축의 매커니즘과 협력적 논증 지원의 필요조건
• 3. 협력적 논증 상호작용 촉진을 위한 지원
• Ⅲ. 연구 방법
• 1. 연구 대상
• 2. 연구 설계 및 절차
• 3. 연구 도구 및 측정도구
• 4. 측정도구
• V. 연구 결과
• 1. 협력적 논증 활동의 상호작용 메시지 수의 비교 결과
• 2. 상호작용 메시지 유형의 비교 결과
• Ⅵ. 결론 및 논의
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Dillenbourg, P., "What do you mean by 'collaborative leaning'?. in: Collaborative-leaning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches" Elsevier 1-19, 1999

2 Janssen, J., "Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?" 49 : 1037-1065, 2007

3 Bell, P., "Using argument representations to make thinking visible for indivisualsand groups" 10-19, 1997

4 Nussbaum, E. M., "Using Argumentation Vee Diagrams(AVDs) for Promoting Argument-Counterargument integration in Reflective Writing" 100 (100): 549-565, 2008

5 Toulmin, S., "The uses of argument (2ed.)" Cambridge University Press 2003

6 Chinn, C. A., "The structure of discussion that promote reasoning" 100 : 315-368, 1998

7 Kuhn, D., "The skill of argument" Cambridge University Press 1991

8 Oh, S., "The effects of constraint based argumentation scaffolding and epistemological beliefs on ill structured diagnosis-solution problem solving" University of Missouri 2004

9 Schwarz, B. B., "The blind and the paralytic: supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. in: Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments" Kluwer Academic 227-260, 2003

10 Leitão, S., "The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building" 43 : 332-360, 2000

11 Scadamalia, M., "The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. in: Classroom Lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice" MIT Press 1994

12 Clark, D. B., "Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Support Students' Argumentation. in: Argumentation in Science Education" Springer 2008

13 Munneke, L., "Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem" 23 : 1072-1088, 2007

14 Lave, J., "Situated Learning : Legitimate peripheral participation" Cambridge University Press 1991

15 Weinberger, A., "Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction" Ludwig-Maximilians -Universität 2003

16 King, A, "Scripting Collaborative Learning Processes: A Cognitive Perspective. in: Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives" Springer 13-37, 2007

17 Weinberger, A., "Scripting Argumentative Knowledge Construction in Computer-Supported Learning Environments. in: Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning" Springer 2007

18 Oh, S., "Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving" 23 : 95-110, 2007

19 van Arnelsvoort, M., "Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams" 16 (16): 485-521, 2007

20 Nussbaum, E. M., "Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions" 2 : 479-500, 2007

21 Bell, P., "Promotng student's argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. in: Internet environments for science education" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 115-143, 2004

22 Hsi, S., "Productive discussion in science: Gender equlty through electronic discourse" 6 (6): 23-26, 1997

23 Lipponen, L., "Practices and orientations of CSCL. in: What We Know About CSCL and Implementing It In Higher Education" Kluwer Academic Publishers 31-50, 2004

24 Fischer, F., "Perspectives on Collaboration Scripts. in: Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives" Springer 1-10, 2007

25 Dillenbourg, P., "Over-scripting CSCL. in: Three worlds of CSCL: Can we Support CSCL" Open University of the Netherlands 61-91, 2002

26 Sfard, A., "On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one" 27 : 4-13, 1998

27 Simon, S., "Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom" 28 (28): 235-260, 2006

28 Chinn, C. A., "Learning to Argue. in: Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 355-383, 2006

29 Jarvela, S., "Instructional support in CSCL. in: What We Know About CSCL and Implementing It In Higher Education" Kluwer Academic Publishers 115-139, 2004

30 Dillenbourg, P., "Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer supported collaborative learning" 23 : 1-13, 2007

31 Stegmann, K., "Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts" 2 : 421-447, 2007

32 van Bruggen, J. M., "External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load" 12 : 121-138, 2002

33 Paavola, S., "Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. in: Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundation for a CSCL community" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 24-32, 2002

34 Jermann, P., "Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. in: Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments" Kluwer Academic 205-226, 2003

35 Bereiter, B., "Education and mind in the knowledge age" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2002

36 Dillenbourg, P., "Designing integrative scrips. in: Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives" Springer 275-301, 2007

37 van Bruggen, J., "Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. in: Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments" Kluwer Academic 177-204, 2003

38 Dillenbourg, P., "Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. in: Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication" Springer 243-264, 2005

39 Baker, M., "Designing a computer-supported collaborative learning situation for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate" 2002

40 de Vries, E., "Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicle for understanding scientific notions" 11 (11): 63-103, 2002

41 Baker, M. J., "Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notion. in: Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments" Kluwer Academic 47-78, 2003

42 Carr, C. S., "Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation: Supporting Problem-based Learning in Legal Education Computer Conferences" 2001

43 Rummel, N., "Can People Learn Computer-Mediated Collaboration by Following A Script?. in: Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives" Springer 39-55, 2007

44 Koschmann, T., "CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: argumentation is learning. in: Arguing to Learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments" Kluwer 259-265, 2003

45 Weinberger, A., "CSCL scripts: Effects of social and epistemic scripts on computer-supported collaborative learning" VDM Verlag 2008

46 Stahl, G., "Building collaborative knowing. in: Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge" MIT Press 303-330, 2006

47 Andriessen, J., "Argumentation, Computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. in: Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments" Kluwer Academic 27-46, 2003

48 Andriessen, J., "Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. in: Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments" Kluwer Academic 79-115, 2003

49 Munneke, L., "Arguing to learn; Supporting interactive argumentation through Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning" University of Utrecht 2007

50 Andriessen, J., "Arguing to Learn. in: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Science" cambridge university press 443-459, 2006

51 Bouwer, A., "ArgueTrack: The design of an argumentative dialogue interface" 1998

52 Clark, D. B., "Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments" 19 (19): 343-374, 2007

53 Weinberger, A., "A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning" 46 : 71-95, 2006

54 Edelson, D., "A design for effective support of inquiry and collaboration" 107-111, 1995

55 van Bruggen, J. M., "A cognitive framwork for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. in: Visualizing Argumentation" Springer 25-47, 2003