Week 5 EME6403
1
ven when positive interdependence and individual accountability is established, deep collaboration (as opposed to group think) cannot be maximized if team members are not able to openly reveal, discuss, and negotiate conflicts and differences in viewpoints and maintain positive relationships. Social communication skills are needed to help groups identify, discuss, and negotiate differences (while maintaining positive working relationships), and therefore, these skills form another essential component of cooperative learning. To learn and apply methods that promote productive interaction and communication, we will engage in an online team debate, experience some of the methods used to promote deep interaction, apply various skills to critiquing and evaluating the strength of empirical evidence, and share reactions, comments, and suggestions on the debate activity.
As a result, this week’s objectives are the following:
1.
Apply methods for promoting deep interaction & constructive dialog.
2.
Apply socio-cognitive skills used to critically examine and evaluate evidence used to support a claim.
3.
Identify strength and weaknesses in the methods used to promote deep interaction and socio-cognitive processing and propose possible ways to overcome noted issues and limitations.
What are the socio-cognitive processes that make good arguments, critical discussion, and theory building?

JJ&H textbook, chapter 8 “Specifying Desired Behaviors”

Walton (1992) (pp. 81-112) from Chapter 3 titled Dialog

BCSkeptics (2004) Critical thinking , argument analysis & fallacies
What methods can be used to support the socio-cognitive processes of critical discussion, critical inquiry, and/or theory building?

Jeong2006ConversationalStyle.pdf

Janssen2007VisualAgreement.pdf
Optional exercise : Go to Assessments and click on Chapter 8 quiz to test your knowledge and comprehension of the content in the JJ&H textbook. Your scores on the quiz do not count towards your grade.

Week 5 EME6403 2
Requirements : 6 postings minimum per student (10 pts)
Deadline : Complete by this Sunday
The purpose of this activity is to: a) explore and apply some of the key socio-cognitive processes (and “fermenting skills”); b) apply and experience one particular technique to scaffolding the processes of social cognition associated with the use of “message labeling”; and c) critically evaluate the merits of the empirical evidence presented in empirical research papers. You will engage in a team debate to critically evaluate an empirical study
(this week’s reading, Jeong 2006) to determine the strength of the evidence (and plausibility of the claim) reported in the Jeong 2006 study to support the claim that promotive interaction improves the quality of cognitive processing (two of the factors we examined in our initial causal maps and theory paper 1). You will be assigned to one of two teams to argue for or against the following claim:
The Jeong (2006) paper that examined the effects of conversational style on the quality of argumentation presents strong evidence to show that “promotive interaction” improves the “quality of cognitive processing”
Important Note!
The socio-cognitive processes you are about to apply in this activity (e.g. present arguments for including a specific causal link in the team’s causal map, challenge the arguments, counter-challenge or rebut a challenge, provide explanations/examples to justify a proposed causal link, present empirical evidence to support arguments and/or challenges) and the method used to promote it (message labeling) are techniques that I will now ask your project#1 team to apply and design into the week 9 and week 10 class activities. I would like you to apply the method of message labeling into the week 9 and 10 team discussions as a means to improve the depth and quality of your team’s discussions
(proposing, thoroughly testing and examining, and possibly to arriving at group consensus on which causal links to include and exclude from your team’s final causal map and shared team theory). All of this should be clearer once you read the Jeong (2006) paper.
Instructions :
1.
Review debate protocols - Review the instructions on how to post messages to the debate.
PRINT OUT and review the procedures before posting messages to the debate.
When you post messages, follow the procedures and rules described in the instructions.
Pay particular attention to the examples for details on how to follow the procedures.
Important Note : You must follow the described procedures (particularly the procedures for "labeling" the function of each message you post to the debate) to receive participation points for this activity (no partial credit). You can always return to a previous posting (prior to the deadline) to correct for procedural errors should you, your course instructor, or others identify a procedural error in your postings.
2.
Determine which team you have been assigned to defend - Go to the designated discussion forum and open message “Debate teams” to determine which team/position

Week 5 EME6403 you have been assigned to defend. During the debate, you are to post only messages that support your assigned position (in order to maximize the use of fermenting skills).
3.
Post messages to the debate - Go to the two designated discussion threads in the discussion forum to post arguments (or main premises ) that support the claim or arguments that oppose the claim. Reply to arguments to challenge the merits of the arguments, to provide additional explanations, counter-challenges, etc. Apply various evaluation criteria to identify strengths and weaknesses in the article’s claims and findings. Explain the criteria you use with descriptions and/or supporting links.
3
Requirements : Cast vote + post explanation + post comment & suggestions (10 pts)
Deadline : Complete by this Sunday
Complete the after debate poll to share and explain your final evaluation of the evidence presented in the Jeong (2006) article on the effects of conversational style in computer supported collaborative argumentation.
Do you believe the empirical evidence presented is strong, moderate, or weak when used to show the causal impact of promotive interaction (e.g. using conversational style) on the quality of cognitive processing (e.g. number of times arguments are challenged)? Why?
Also, share your comments and suggestions on the methods used in the debate to promote interaction and socio-cognitive processing and the methods used to share final conclusions following the debate. What worked well? What did not work well? How can it be improved? How might the methods be used to support collaboration in project 2?
Instructions :
Go to http://6403.wikispaces.com/Evaluate+Evidence to perform the following tasks:
1.
Cast your vote on your assessment of the strength of the evidence presented in the
Jeong (2006) paper used to show that the “promotive interaction” improves
“quality of cognitive processing”. |
See current vote results |
2.
Under the appropriate heading in the wiki, post an explanation (100 words minimum ) for your vote. Include your name enclosed in parentheses following your explanation to receive credit for the posting.
Explanations for voting: | Strong | Moderate | Weak | **
3.
Post your comments and suggestions about the debate and after-debate poll. What did you like and dislike? What can be done to improve the activity? How might we use these methods to support project 2? Include your name enclosed in parentheses to receive credit for the posting | Post comments | **
** Complete at minimum steps 2 and 3 to receive participation points for this activity

Week 5
Requirements : Post peer evaluation for the week (5 pts)
Deadline : Complete by this Sunday
Go to you Google docs account to evaluate your own and your team members’ contribution and performance in your team project during the week 5 period (and only during week
5).
EME6403 4