Investigating the depth of problem-solving prompts in collaborative argumentation

To date, little is known regarding how to best design instruction/guidance prompts that support learners’ participation in collaborative argumentation (CA). To address this gap, this study compared the influence of two instruction/guidance prompts prior to learners’ CA: problem representation (executive summary of the problem) and full problem-solving (problem representation, alternatives, justification, evaluation). Discussions were analysed using Phases 1–5 of the interaction analysis model (IAM) to determine the degree to which learners engaged in CA. Those in the full problem-solving condition were more likely to challenge the assertions of their peers. However, participants in the problem representation condition were more likely to integrate feedback as interaction progressed. This research describes how the design of instruction/guidance prompts affects the degree to which concepts and solutions are fixed as learners encounter differing perspectives from their peers during collaborative argumentation