Strengthening collaborative argumentation with interactive guidance: a dialogic peer feedback approach based on the six thinking hats strategy

References

• Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2014). Arguing to learn. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 439–460). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A. M. (2020). Using historical scientific controversies to promote undergraduates’ argumentation. Science & Education, 29(3), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00126-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C. (2012). Facilitating classroom argumentation with computer technology. In R. Gillies (Ed.), Pedagogies: New developments in the learning sciences (pp. 105–129). Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices, 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_5
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 76–88). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & McCormick, R. (2010). Reflections and new directions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.493696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9379-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charsky, D., & Ressler, W. (2011). “Games are made for fun”: Lessons on the effects of concept maps in the classroom use of computer games. Computers & Education, 56(3), 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, W., Tan, J. S., & Pi, Z. (2021). The spiral model of collaborative knowledge improvement: An exploratory study of a networked collaborative classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09338-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, W., Zhang, S., Pi, Z., Tan, J. S., Wen, Y., Looi, C. K., Yeo, J., & Liu, Q. (2023). Students’ appropriation of collaboration script in a networked class: An exploratory study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 33, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2023.2256348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, X., Wang, L., Zhai, X., & Li, Y. (2022). Exploring the effects of argument Map-supported online group debate activities on college students’ critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 856462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, L., Li, Y., Su, Y., & Gao, L. (2022). Effect of regulation scripts for dialogic peer assessment on feedback quality, critical thinking and climate of trust. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(4), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chien, C. W. (2021). A case study of the use of the Six Thinking Hats to enhance the reflective practice of student teachers in Taiwan. Education, 49(5), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1754875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O'Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314–332). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, H. C. (2014). Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load—A format assessment perspective. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 332–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cioffi, J. M. (2017). Collaborative care: Using six thinking hats for decision making. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 23(6), e12593. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
   Google Scholar
• Coirier, P., Andriessen, J., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing. Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053563403
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Darmawansah, D., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2022). Empowering the collective reflection-based argumentation mapping strategy to enhance students’ argumentative speaking. Computers & Education, 184, 104516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats: An essential approach to business management. Little Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• de Bono, E. (1992). Six thinking hats for schools. Hawker Brownlow Education.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2013). An examination of the effects of argument mapping on students' memory and comprehension performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021a). A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: A theoretical framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 586–600. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Er, E, Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021b). Collaborative peer feedback and learning analytics: Theory-oriented design for supporting class-wide interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 169–190. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1764490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, L., Li, X., Li, Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of socio-emotional interaction in high- and Low-performing collaborative argumentation groups. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32(6), 817–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00698-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Göçmen, Ö, & Coşkun, H. (2019). The effects of the six thinking hats and speed on creativity in brainstorming. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, J., Kim, K. H., Rhee, W., & Cho, Y. H. (2021). Learning analytics dashboards for adaptive support in face-to-face collaborative argumentation. Computers & Education, 163, 104041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., & Quinn, S. (2017). Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9263-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, J., & West, H. (2019). Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1608908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, M., & Borenstein, J. (2014). Understanding ill-structured engineering ethics problems through a collaborative learning and argument visualization approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9430-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, C. C., Chiu, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Wang, T. I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers & Education, 91, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Y., Yu, W., Ren, Z., Du, X., Lan, L., Wang, Q., Ji, T., & Guo, Y. (2021). Coordinating role of six-hat thinking technique in design team during idea-generation phase of service design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative Mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01102.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, A., & Chiu, M. M. (2020). Production blocking in brainstorming arguments in online group debates and asynchronous threaded discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3097–3114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09845-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaeppel, K. (2021). The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasch, J., Van Rosmalen, P., Henderikx, M., & Kalz, M. (2022). The factor structure of the peer-feedback orientation scale (PFOS): Toward a measure for assessing students’ peer-feedback dispositions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1893650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, R. (2007). In-class debates: Fertile ground for active learning and the cultivation of critical thinking and oral communication skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 183–190.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S., Eun, J., Oh, C., Suh, B., & Lee, J. (2020). Bot in the bunch: Facilitating group chat discussion by improving efficiency and participation with a chatbot. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.
   Google Scholar
• King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kivunja, C. (2015). Using de Bono’s six thinking hats model to teach critical thinking and problem solving skills essential for success in the 21st century economy. Creative Education, 06(3), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.63037
   Google Scholar
• Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., Wang, H. H., & Lee, S. T. (2011). Using reflective peer assessment to promote students’ conceptual understanding through asynchronous discussions. Journal of Educational Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 178–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. R. (2019). Student positions and web-based argumentation with the support of the six thinking hats. Computers & Education, 139, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. R., Fan, B., & Xie, K. (2020). The influence of a web-based learning environment on low achievers’ science argumentation. Computers & Education, 151, 103860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2013). LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, N. J., Clark, L. M., & Raines, J. M. (2015). Engaging students in critical thinking and problem solving: A brief review of the literature. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(4), 100–113. http://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v5i4.8249
   Google Scholar
• Memiş, E. K., Sönmez, E., & Akkaş, B. N. Ç. (2023). Computer-aided argument mapping: Effect of individual and collaborative practices on reasoning skills. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.52380/mojet.2023.11.1.425
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng, W. S., & Yu, G. (2023). The impacts of dialogic interaction to engage students in peer assessment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00633-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O. (2023). The role of students’ epistemic beliefs for their argumentation performance in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(4), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2092188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., Dove, I. J., Slife, N., Kardash, C. M., Turgut, R., & Vallett, D. (2019). Using critical questions to evaluate written and oral arguments in an undergraduate general education seminar: A quasi-experimental study. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1531–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9848-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Putney, L. G. (2020). Learning to use benefit-cost arguments: A microgenetic study of argument-counterargument integration in an undergraduate seminar course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partnership for 21st century skills. (2006). A state leader’s action guide to 21st century skills: A new vision for education. Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
   Google Scholar
• Pinto, T., Barreto, J., Praça, I., Sousa, T. M., Vale, Z., & Pires, E. S. (2015). Six thinking hats: A novel metalearner for intelligent decision support in electricity markets. Decision Support Systems, 79, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers, M. F., & Jones-Walker, J. (2005). An interdisciplinary collaboration to improve critical thinking among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(1-5), 516.
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, H. J. M., & Monterola, S. L. C. (2022). Co-creating scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning and its effects on students’ logical thinking in earth science. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(5), 908–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1702063
   Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C., & Walton, D. (2016). The use of argument maps as an assessment tool in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, C., & Shepherd, J. (2010). Online role-play environments for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 992–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01048.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2014). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 42(2), 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shehab, H. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2015). Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies. Learning and Instruction, 35, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Si, J., Kong, H. H., & Lee, S. H. (2019). Developing clinical reasoning skills through argumentation with the concept map method in medical problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176
   Google Scholar
• Singapore Ministry of Education. (2022). 21st Century Competencies. https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/21st-century-Competencies
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uçar, B., & Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2021). The effect of argument mapping supported with peer feedback on pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 37(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1815107
   Google Scholar
• Van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with reason! able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.
   Google Scholar
• Van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham-Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97–115). Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Van Gelder, T. J. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Australian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (pp. 539–548). Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Vernon, D., & Hocking, I. (2016). Beyond belief: Structured techniques prove more effective than a placebo intervention in a problem construction task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, J. M. (2022). Supporting the uptake process with dialogic peer screencast feedback: A socio-material perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2042243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhan, Y., Wan, Z. H., & Sun, D. (2022). Online formative peer feedback in Chinese contexts at the tertiary Level: A critical review on its design, impacts and influencing factors. Computers & Education, 176, 104341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, X. L., Huang, J., Xia, X. H., Hwang, G. J., Tu, Y. F., Huang, Y. P., & Wang, F. (2023). Effects of online whiteboard-based collaborative argumentation scaffolds on group-level cognitive regulations, written argument skills and regulation patterns. Computers & Education, 207, 104920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897. doi:10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar