提高 MOOC 讨论区的论证质量:学习识别论证的组成部分是否有帮助?

IF 3.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning Pub Date : 2024-07-15 DOI:10.58459/rptel.2025.20017
Kenzo Nera, Mariane Frenay, Magali Paquot
{"title":"提高 MOOC 讨论区的论证质量:学习识别论证的组成部分是否有帮助?","authors":"Kenzo Nera, Mariane Frenay, Magali Paquot","doi":"10.58459/rptel.2025.20017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Constructive argumentation among learners is integral to effective learning. In the context of Massively Open Online Classes (MOOCs), such peer interactions can only occur in discussion forums, where they often prove to be sparse and of poor quality. To address these challenges, we developed and experimentally tested an intervention (nparticipants = 110, narguments = 270) aimed at improving the quality of learners’ written arguments in MOOC forums, taking into account MOOC platform constraints (e.g., self-paced participation and the impossibility of providing personalised feedback). In the first chapter of a management MOOC, participants randomly assigned to the experimental group (vs control) were introduced to the formal components of arguments: claims, justifications and qualifications. They were then asked to identify these components in a series of examples. We found no significant impact of this intervention on learners’ responses to individual open-ended questions directly following the intervention, or in their contributions to discussion forums. Instead, we observed variation in argument quality based on the specific questions prompting argumentation. Our findings prompt further discussion and exploration of strategies to enhance argumentation quality in MOOC discussion forums.","PeriodicalId":37055,"journal":{"name":"Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving argumentation quality on MOOC discussion forums: does learning to identify components of arguments help?\",\"authors\":\"Kenzo Nera, Mariane Frenay, Magali Paquot\",\"doi\":\"10.58459/rptel.2025.20017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Constructive argumentation among learners is integral to effective learning. In the context of Massively Open Online Classes (MOOCs), such peer interactions can only occur in discussion forums, where they often prove to be sparse and of poor quality. To address these challenges, we developed and experimentally tested an intervention (nparticipants = 110, narguments = 270) aimed at improving the quality of learners’ written arguments in MOOC forums, taking into account MOOC platform constraints (e.g., self-paced participation and the impossibility of providing personalised feedback). In the first chapter of a management MOOC, participants randomly assigned to the experimental group (vs control) were introduced to the formal components of arguments: claims, justifications and qualifications. They were then asked to identify these components in a series of examples. We found no significant impact of this intervention on learners’ responses to individual open-ended questions directly following the intervention, or in their contributions to discussion forums. Instead, we observed variation in argument quality based on the specific questions prompting argumentation. Our findings prompt further discussion and exploration of strategies to enhance argumentation quality in MOOC discussion forums.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2025.20017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2025.20017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学习者之间的建设性争论是有效学习不可或缺的一部分。在大规模开放式网络课程(MOOC)的背景下,这种同伴互动只能在讨论区中进行,而讨论区中的互动往往稀少且质量低下。为了应对这些挑战,我们开发并实验测试了一种干预措施(nparticipants = 110, narguments = 270),旨在提高学习者在 MOOC 论坛中的书面论证质量,同时考虑到 MOOC 平台的限制(如自定步调参与和无法提供个性化反馈)。在管理类 MOOC 的第一章中,随机分配到实验组(与对照组相比)的学员被介绍了论证的正式组成部分:主张、理由和资格。然后要求他们在一系列例子中识别这些组成部分。我们发现,这种干预对学习者在干预后直接回答个别开放式问题或在讨论论坛上发表意见没有明显影响。相反,我们观察到,论证质量因提示论证的具体问题而异。我们的研究结果促使我们进一步讨论和探索在 MOOC 论坛中提高论证质量的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving argumentation quality on MOOC discussion forums: does learning to identify components of arguments help?
Constructive argumentation among learners is integral to effective learning. In the context of Massively Open Online Classes (MOOCs), such peer interactions can only occur in discussion forums, where they often prove to be sparse and of poor quality. To address these challenges, we developed and experimentally tested an intervention (nparticipants = 110, narguments = 270) aimed at improving the quality of learners’ written arguments in MOOC forums, taking into account MOOC platform constraints (e.g., self-paced participation and the impossibility of providing personalised feedback). In the first chapter of a management MOOC, participants randomly assigned to the experimental group (vs control) were introduced to the formal components of arguments: claims, justifications and qualifications. They were then asked to identify these components in a series of examples. We found no significant impact of this intervention on learners’ responses to individual open-ended questions directly following the intervention, or in their contributions to discussion forums. Instead, we observed variation in argument quality based on the specific questions prompting argumentation. Our findings prompt further discussion and exploration of strategies to enhance argumentation quality in MOOC discussion forums.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
3.10%
发文量
28
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Integrating self-explanation and operational data for impasse detection in mathematical learning Exploring undergraduate students’ learning experience and engagement in synchronous online teaching supported by corpus-based language pedagogy Improving argumentation quality on MOOC discussion forums: does learning to identify components of arguments help? Extract instructional process from xAPI log data: a case study in Japanese junior high school Rater behaviors in peer evaluation: Patterns and early detection with learner model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1