Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 15 October 2014, At: 02:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20
Argumentation Course by ElectronicMailMiika Marttunen aa Department of Education , University of Jyväskylä , PO Box35, FIN‐40351, Jyväskylä, FinlandPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Miika Marttunen (1997) Argumentation Course by Electronic Mail,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 41:1, 15-32, DOI: 10.1080/0031383970410102
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383970410102
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1997 15
Argumentation Course byElectronic MailMIIKA MARTTUNENDepartment of Education, University of Jyväskylä, PO Box 35, FIN-40351,Jyväskylä, Finland
ABSTRACT This article examines the question of whether electronic-mail (e-mail) discussionsprovide university students with an appropriate and profitable environment for practisingargumentation and critical thinking skills. An experiment in which 31 undergraduate studentsand two tutors engaged in argumentative e-mail discussions is described. The discussions wererelated to two set books on the sociology of education. The participants' perceptions of thediscussions and of e-mail as a study method were evaluated by means of a student questionnaireand tutor interviews. Most of the students found that the discussions included a lot ofconstructive critique, mutual encouragement and constructive advising. A majority of thestudents also reported taking an active part in the discussions and opening new exchanges bypresenting their own grounded standpoints. The realized e-mail discussions also includedargumentation and debates between the students. Furthermore, the students found the learningclimate to be motivating and supportive, and they were willing to complete another course in thesame way. The tutors' perceptions supported those of the students. The results suggest thate-mail encouraged and stimulated the students to engage in argumentative debates and thate-mail forms an appropriate context for practising argumentation.
INTRODUCTION
The appropriateness of computer-mediated communications (CMCs) via electronicmail (e-mail), computer conferencing (CC) and electronic bulletin boards in anacademic environment is widely recognized (Paulsen, 1992; Holden & Wedman,1993; Wells, 1993). One central reason for this is that e-mail facilitates and increasesinteraction between people (Eastmond, 1992). Thus, in higher education, thistechnology has been used as a forum for interaction and collaboration in connectionwith both undergraduate (Thomas, 1994; Leppänen & Kalaja, 1995) and graduatecourses (Mason, 1993; Hansen & Gladfelter, 1995) as well as in the work ofadministrators and researchers (Kaye et al., 1989). Also, the need to develop CMCapplications in higher education has recently been recognized (Holden & Wedman,1993).
It is essential in informal argumentation to present relevant and sufficientgrounds for supporting stated claims (Toulmin et al., 1984; Hintikka & Bachman,1991). Developed argumentation skills are needed in academic communication
0031-3831/97/010015-18 © 1997 Journals Oxford Ltd
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
16 M. Marttunen
when people have to convince their audience about the correctness of their stand-points and when they have to assess critically other people's statements (Marttunen,1994). Argumentation is also a fundamental tool when supporting the validity ofscientific knowledge (Cronbach, 1990, pp. 185-189). Thus, the skills to presentsolid arguments and think critically have been defined as essential goals in higher-education studies (Collier, 1984; Halpern, 1993).
Several aspects are cited in the relevant literature that support the suitability ofe-mail discussions in promoting these skills. Boyd (1987) emphasizes the suitabilityof e-mail for providing emancipative learning situations in which argumentation mayproceed free from rhetorical tricks, threats or promises typical of ordinary face-to-face debates. In the same vein, Steinberg (1992; see also Seaton, 1993) stresses thepotential of this technology to engage people in focused discussions of alternativepoints of view. Meyers (1986) regards such a learning environment as beingimportant in terms of promoting argumentation and critical thinking skills. He statesthat when peer students' standpoints and conclusions differ from those of one's ownyou fall, in Piagetian terminology (Meyers, 1986, pp. 13-15), into the state ofdisequilibrium in which you have to re-evaluate your former thoughts and argu-ments and construct new ways of thinking.
There have been several experiments in which informal argumentation has beenpractised by e-mail (Clark, 1992; Charlton, 1993; Pugh 1993), but there is a scarcityof research knowledge on this kind of CMC applications. There is, however, agrowing body of research on the amount (for example, Riedl, 1989; Hiltz, 1990) andon the structure and contents (for example, Friedman & McCullough, 1992;Kuehn, 1993; Newman et al., 1996) of CMC, as well as on the students' learningexperiences in CMC environments (for examples, Harasim, 1987; McConnell,1990; Bürge, 1994). However, more research is needed to explore whether e-mailcommunication benefits academic students by promoting their skills to present solidarguments and defending their standpoints. This study addresses this problem bydescribing an experiment in which argumentation was practised through e-mail. Thearticle examines the question of what can be said on the basis of the students' andthe tutors' experiences on the suitability of e-mail in practising argumentation skills.Data were collected (i) on what the students' and the tutors' perceptions of thee-mail discussions were like, and (ii) on how they found e-mail as a study method.
METHOD
Subjects
The e-mail study experiment (n = 31) was carried out in connection with a M.Ed-level introductory course in the sociology of education at the University of Jyväskylä,Finland, from 29 October to 11 December in 1990. At first, 32 subjects from thetotal of 224 students on the course volunteered to complete the course by engagingin six weeks of e-mail discussions. Since one student dropped out, 31 completed theexperiment. Two of the top students in the field of education near their graduationwere also recruited as tutors for the experiment.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Argumentation by E-mail 17
A majority (58%) of the subjects were female, 23 years of age or younger (52%)and in the early stages of their studies (60% of the students had gained 60 or fewerstudy weeks [1]). In addition, they were mostly students of humanities (45%) andeducation (15%).
Description of the Technique
The e-mail studies were carried out by an ordinary form of e-mail (Elm) for Unixincluding a text editor called Emacs. The students used the university's computerterminals located on-campus. Whenever students sent their own message or repliedto a message sent by some other student, the message was delivered to each memberof their group via the mailing list attached to Elm. Thus, the configuration used maybe characterized as a group-enabled e-mail system, providing the students in eachindividual study group with a forum for many-to-many communications (seeHarasim, 1990). The students could also scan all the messages sent and reread themon the screen whenever they wanted.
E-mail Study Arrangements
Seminar and discussion modes of e-mail study were used in the experiment. In theseminar mode the tutor's role resembled that of a traditional teacher. The tutor'smain tasks were to give the students the discussion topics and regular feedback. Thestudents followed the instructions of the tutor. In the discussion mode, by contrast,the students selected the discussion topics together on the basis of their owninterests. Thus, they had more possibilities to direct their studies. The role of thetutor was to act as a co-worker and a resource person.
Four e-mail study groups, with eight students in each, were established; twogroups engaged in the seminar mode and two groups in the discussion mode.
The students did not know each other personally before the experiment, andthey also had the possibility to study anonymously. No face-to-face meetings wereorganized during the study. Only a single face-to-face session was held prior to theexperiment when the students were familiarized with the e-mail program.
The students were expected to write at least two messages a week in order topass the course. Their texts were related to the topics of the two set books (Broady,1986; Takala, 1989) and the course lectures. Broady's book (a monograph) dealtwith the hidden curriculum in school, whereas the book Takala edited consisted ofarticles written by several authors dealing with the sociology of education. Thetutors worked with the same book during the studies. During the first three-weekstudy period the seminar groups studied Takala's book and the discussion groupsstudied Broady's book, and in the beginning of the second half the books and thetutors changed.
The purpose of the e-mail discussions was to practice informal argumentation.A literature review on argumentation was posted to the participants before thestudies in order to acquaint them with the concept and procedural structure ofargumentation. During their studies the students practised argumentation by
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
18 M. Marttunen
presenting in their messages a lot of their own supported standpoints relating to thestudy contents, by critiquing the other students' texts, and by defending their viewswith counter-arguments when they themselves received a critique. In addition,during the studies the tutors guided the students in constructing arguments bypresenting solid arguments in their own messages and by pointing out as goodexamples those students' messages in which the argumentation was good.
Data Collection and Analyses
The students were sent a questionnaire after the critical study period. In thequestionnaire they were asked to evaluate on a modified Likert-scale questionsrelated to: (i) the feedback, study guidance, and manner of presentation included inthe tutors' messages; (ii) the feedback and material relating to argumentationincluded in the messages as a whole; (iii) their feelings when preparing their ownmessages; and (iv) their intentions concerning their participation in the discussionsand argumentation. The questionnaire also included some open-ended and closedquestions about the learning climate, the students' personal experiences of e-mailstudy and their suggestions for developing it. The questionnaire was returned by allexcept one student. In the analyses of the closed questions some of the answercategories were merged when it helped to clarify the results. The open-endedquestions were analysed by classifying answers indicating congruent substance intothe same categories. Some of these categories were also merged to form a broadercategory.
In addition, the researcher interviewed the tutors after the experiment to discussthe relevance of e-mail study for practising argumentation and e-mail as a studymethod. In the analyses of the transcribed recordings the researcher focused onthose points that included information related to the research questions.
RESULTS
In the presentation of the results the two seminar groups are included in the seminarmode (n = 15) and the two discussion groups are included in the discussion mode(«=15).
Students' Perceptions of the E-mail Discussions
In the following the students' perceptions of the e-mail messages sent during thestudy and their feelings and intentions when formulating their own messages aredescribed.
The results in Table I indicate that a majority of the students assessed thetutors' manner of presentation as being considerate (57%) as well as being motivat-ing and encouraging (53%). Similarly, most of the students—distinctly more oftenin the seminar mode than in the discussion mode—made the evaluation that thetutors' study guidance included a lot of material which helped to structure the studyof the books (57%) and to summarize the issues studied (53%). In addition, moststudents (87%) found that the tutors' messages included a lot of encouragement to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
TABLE I. The numbers and percentages of students (n = 30) reporting their perceptions of the content of the tutors' messages inconnection with the seminar (S) and the discussion (D) modes
Content of tutor's messages
FeedbackFeedback on contentPersonal feedbackCritique
Manner of presentation
Motivating and encouraging materialConsiderate/empathetic materialInconsiderate material
Study guidance
Encouragement to argumentationMaterial that helps to structure
the study of the booksMaterial useful in summarizing
the issues studied
S
/
8
1
4
10
8
0
14
11
11
Much*
D
/
51
5
6
9
0
12
6
5
Total
/
13
2
9
16
17
0
26
17
16
%
43
7
30
5357
0
87
57
53
S
/
7
5
10
5
61
1
4
4
Only
D
/
9
10
9
94
3
3
3
5
a little
Total
/
16
15
19
14
10
4
4
7
9
%
53
50
63
47
33
13
13
23
30
S
/
0
9
1
0
1
14
0
0
0
Not at
D
/
1
4
1
0
2
12
0
6
5
all
Total
/
1
13
2
0
3
26
0
6
5
443
7
0
1087
0
20
17
irgumet
***
S
*The categories 'very much' and 'quite a lot' are merged.hiD
ownl
oade
d by
[A
ms/
Gir
ona*
barr
i Lib
] at
02:
37 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
20 M. Marttunen
TABLE II. The numbers and percentages of students (n = 30) reporting their perceptions of the contentof the messages as a whole in connection with the seminar (S) and the discussion (D) modes
To some extentMuch* or not at all**
S D Total S D TotalContents of the messagesas a whole / / / % / / / %
Feedback
Evil-minded criticism 0 1 1 3 1 5 14 41 97Constructive critique 10 8 1 8 60 5 7 12 40Discouraging of others 0 0 0 0 1 5 15 30 100Encouraging of others 12 5 17 57 3 10 13 43Pompous behaviour 3 3 6 20 12 12 24 80Constructive advice 10 6 16 53 5 9 14 47Negative advice 0 1 1 3 15 14 29 97Considerate treatment ofothers' opinions 13 12 25 83 2 3 5 17
Content relating to argumentation
Presenting opinions withtoo weak support 3 5 8 27 12 10 22 73
Direct summarizing of the books 3 4 7 23 12 11 12 77
*The categories 'very much' and 'quite a lot' are merged.**The categories 'to some extent' and 'a little or not at all' are merged.
argumentation, but there was only a little or no (the sum of the categories 'only alittle' and 'not at all') critique (70%), personal feedback (93%) or feedback oncontent (57%).
As shown in Table II, the students found (i) the critique in the messages as awhole to be mainly constructive, the manner of presentation to be (ii) considerateand (iii) encouraging, and (iv) the advice to be constructive—the students in cases(iii) and (iv) found this distinctly more often in the seminar mode than in thediscussion mode. In addition, a majority of the students reported that weak argu-mentation and direct summarizing of the books appeared in the messages only tosome extent or not at all.
The students were also asked to assess the feedback they personally receivedfrom other students. The results proved in other respects to be parallel to theirperceptions of the messages as a whole presented in Table II except in the case ofconstructive advice, which all of the students estimated that they had only occasion-ally or never received personally.
The results in Table III show that the intention of the majority of the studentswas to comment on other students' messages (70%) and to participate in theon-going debates (64%). Accordingly, at least half of the students tried to presentnew points of view (53%) and intentionally sharp and provocative opinions (50%).Furthermore, every student tried to present a lot of his/her own thoughts and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
TABLE III. The numbers and percentages of students (n = 30) reporting their intentions/aspirations during the e-mail study in connection withthe seminar (S) and the discussion (D) modes
Participation in the discussions
I tried to comment activity on others' messages***I tried to participate in the on going debates
Generating the discussionsI tried to create a debate by presenting intentionally
sharp and provocative opinionsI tried to open discussion by presenting new points of viewI tried to initiate debates by provoking others
Items relevant in terms of argumentation
I drew on the books when presenting myopinions because I did not find myselfcompetent to present my own views
I avoided presenting matters differently fromthe way they were presented in the booksbecause I did not want to distort them
I tried to present a lot of my own thoughts and opinions***I tried to take a personal stance on the matters
presented in the booksI tried to include my own experiences in my messagesI paid special attention to the grounding of my opinionsI tried to find weaknesses in the groundings of others
*The categories 'very well' and 'quite well' are merged.**The categories 'quite badly' and 'very badly' are merged.
***One case is missing.
Intentions/aspirationsduring the e-mail study
Well* Cannot say Badly**
S D Total S D Total S D Total
12 9 21 70 0 1 1 7 2 5 7 239 10 19 64 3 1 4 13 3 4 7 23
8 7 15 50 3 3 6 20 4 5 9 3010 6 16 53 5 4 9 30 0 5 5 174 3 7 23 3 2 5 17 8 10 18 60
2 6 8 26 0 2 2 7 13 7 20 67
4 1 5 17 2 0 2 6 9 14 23 77 ^15 14 29 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
13 15 28 94 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 3 ».14 13 27 90 1 0 1 3 0 2 2 7 »10 7 17 57 4 5 9 30 1 3 4 13 <5"3 3 6 20 5 4 9 30 7 8 15 50 fr]
s
toi—»
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
22 M. Marttunen
opinions, and a majority tried to take a personal stance on the matters presented inthe set books (94%) and they paid special attention to the grounding of theiropinions (57%). Yet, only a minority (20%) tried to find weaknesses in the otherstudents' groundings. No particular differences were found between the differentstudy modes.
In addition, the students were asked about their feelings when preparing theirmessages. According to the results, most of the students prepared their messageswith care (53%, 16 out of 30) and included in their texts things that they would nothave presented in a face-to-face situation (57%, 17 out of 30).
Tutors' Perceptions of the E-mail Discussions
The tutors' perceptions supported those of the students. The tutors found that thediscussions included a lot of the students' own standpoints and critiques. They alsomentioned that debate and argumentation between a couple of students proceededin a lively fashion. However, both of the tutors found that the task of engaging inacademic argumentation was sometimes too demanding for students who were inthe early stages of their studies. According to one tutor, a problem in the seminargroups was that at first the students adopted a pupil-like attitude towards the study,and hence, their first texts more closely resembled answers to the discussion themesrather than independent argumentation. Similarly, the other tutor pointed out thatin the discussion groups the task of producing argumentative texts was too demand-ing at very beginning for the students. However, according to both of the tutors,improvements in argumentation took place after the early phases of the experiment,and the discussions started being more free and vigorous, and the students gainedmore courage to express and defend their thoughts.
Examples of the E-mail Discussions
In the following, three messages sent during the e-mail study are presented in orderto illustrate the argumentative nature of the discussions. The messages describe adebate that took place between two of the students in discussion group 1 on thebasis of the topic 'the hidden curriculum' (Broady, 1986) chosen by the studentsthemselves. The code 'kt' denotes the participants' user signs: kt21-kt28 for thestudents in the discussion group 1, kt43 for the tutor, and kt45 for the researcher.
Message 1 (female, 20 years, 0 study weeks, arts student, From kt22 Fri Nov 212:01:56 1990, Subject: The hidden curriculum, To: kt21, kt22, kt23, kt24,kt25, kt26, kt27, kt28, kt43, kt45): What is the hidden curriculum? If I,after having read the book, have understood it correctly, it—at least in thiscontext—is all what teachers along with an actual curriculum 'teach' orconvey to the students. It means that valuations and points of view areconveyed to the students without their knowing it. Like Broady expressedit: 'a belief that a teacher conveys students knowledge only, nothing else, iswrong!' Is there a hidden curriculum in today's schools? I think there is. I
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Argumentation by E-mail 23
do not agree with Broady's claim that children from different social classesare taught, in a way, unequally, that children from the working class wouldbe conveyed, 'in a hidden way', a message that they are unable to acquirecertain things. I think that nowadays children are no longer classified onthe basis of their social background, but that the classification is based onsomething else. I cannot properly say on what basis that classification isdone but in schools today children are classified, for example, into thosewho are talented in mathematics, talented in languages (I mean thelearning of foreign languages), talented in music and so on. Perhaps thisclassification is done on the basis of one's first years in school, on the basisof one's first slips. In this respect, the hidden curriculum is bad. However,the hidden curriculum should not always be condemned. It helps studentsto adopt certain rules needed in living together. Students learn to meetother people as 'people'. But if (and as obviously most often is the case) itis used as a means in manipulating students to comply with certain socialideologies or rules, it's bad. I think that the hidden curriculum should bemade public. Yet, I think that among teachers it is, in a way, not publiclyexpressed, but commonly recognized. Teachers use it consciously whenthey want to convey, not so much their own opinions and valuations, butthe valuations the power apparatus of society has 'fed' to teachers. If thesefacts were publicly acknowledged, teaching could be built on a honestground, schools would be giving impartial teaching, and students could bemade to think with their own brains. We could get rid of book truths.Regards kt22/Pirjo. [2]
Message 2 (male, 21 years, 35 study weeks, a student of sociology, From kt26Mon Nov 5 12:07:09 1990, Subject: Re: to kt22, To: kt22, Cc:kt21, kt23,kt24, kt25, kt26, kt27, kt28, kt43, kt45): To kt22: The way our colleaguekt22 expressed her opinion on the hidden curriculum remained a bitunclear to me. I found the arguments to be rather puzzling but, still, Iwould like to comment on some points. In the first place, the author statesthat the hidden curriculum (henceforth h.c.) exists, but abandons Broady'smodel of classification based on social background and offers as a solutiona classification based on the manifestation of different aspects of talents.This means that education is totally democratic and the selection is basedon talent only. From this one could get such an impression that the writeris a supporter of social Darwinism, which means that, since the children ofworkers will still with a high probability become workers too, it has to bebased on hereditary characteristics. For another, the writer states that theh.c. is consciously implemented by the teachers. I do not doubt that mostof the teachers are not already, at least to some extent, aware of theexistence of the h.c , but I do doubt whether the intentional purpose ofeven a single teacher is to distort the division of labour in society and tohinder the social mobility, since this is what the h.c. is basically about. To
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
24 M. Marttunen
begin with, when it is thought that the h.c. is 'used' for something, I think,this is incorrect thinking—or, at least, such thinking easily leads to incor-rect interpretations. The h.c. is not created by someone consciously, nordoes any personified subject use it for some particular purpose. The h.c. isa structurally inbuilt element in society which distorts reproduction—it issomething 'beyond an individual'. Moreover, the writer is dreaming about'impartial' teaching, which would be realized if the h.c. was revealed,resulting in students learning to think with their own brains. First, due tothe 'transindividualized' nature of the h.c. it is not an easy task to reveal itunambiguously. The h.c. is a result of social historical development, and itwill, in this form, develop quite independently while society changes, but itwill hardly disappear. And even if it was 'revealed' it would not, on its own,guarantee 'impartial' teaching and more reasonable study contents. kt26.
Message 3 (From kt22 Mon Nov 5 15:20:39 1990, Subject: the reply of the replyto kt26, To: kt21, kt22, kt23, kt24, kt25, kt26, kt27, kt28, kt43, kt45):Thank you for your reply and critique! First, I have to admit that mywriting was only a superficial go at the issue and that I had not expressedmy thoughts clearly enough. Thus, I would now like to clarify those pointsyou took up so that my thoughts would become better understood. In yourfirst comment you claimed that I am a supporter of social Darwinism. Icannot express my stance on this claim since I don't know the content ofthat term, but I would like to defend my position when I rejected Broady'sview about the division of students into some particular categories on thebasis of their social backgrounds. I think that today's teachers treat stu-dents impartially in that sense that they do not label their students as'stupid' because their parents are workers, and as clever because theirparents are non-socialists, representatives of the so-called upper class. Iclaimed that the division is based on something else, I was not able toground that claim and I'm still unable to do it. I claimed that, in some way,during the first school years that division is done into those who aretalented in some particular subjects (for example those talented in math-ematics) and into those who are non-talented. I did not mean withthat—neither then nor now—that the division would be done on the basisof genes. And next to may claim of teacher's 'conscious hidden-teaching'.Teachers are educated in a certain way, in which the aim is to standardizethem slightly, so that a too strong individuality is not liked (I may be wrongand I am ready to develop myself and to chance my thoughts if someonepresents 'WATERTIGHT' evidence that I am wrong). When teachers goand teach they consciously 'convey' (I do not find a better or clearer term)their own valuations and opinions, partially derived from their own edu-cation. As an example I could say that teachers 'convey' to their studentsthe conceptions of goodness and badness of some particular kind. Studentsare not allowed to think by themselves what they would regard as good and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Argumentation by E-mail 25
bad. So, teachers are not consciously aiming at distorting society, insteadI meant that in those valuations that students adopt from their teachers,opinions are conveyed which are teachers' own and partially obtainedduring their education, i.e. opinions that are prevalent in society. Perhapswe tend to give a too one-sided picture of how things are. I think that anopen public discussion of the hidden curriculum would help in findingbetter 'study contents' to schools. It's not, naturally, the only solution andmeans to 'clean' the school-world but I think it is one aspect that shouldbe taken into account. Regards kt22/Pirjo.
Characterization of the Messages
The example messages above portray an argumentative dialogue in which, in thebeginning, the first discussant (kt22) presents her own opinions relating to thecontent in the book, then, the second discussant (kt26) presents a well-groundedcritique (perhaps a bit sharp), and, finally, the first discussant defends and clarifiesher original standpoints.
However, the e-mail discussion also included many such messages that re-mained individual contributions to some topic and which were never commented onby other students. Another problem, which also occurred in the examples above, wasthat the students differed in terms of their disciplines and length of studies; thisresulted in differences in both the content knowledge and the argumentation in themessages. Nevertheless, on the whole, the students' texts were argumentative:several of them were long and reflective and included a lot of their own reasonedstandpoints.
Students' Perceptions of E-mail as a Study Method
As Shown in Table IV, most of the students found that the learning climate includedthe support of the group (97%), provided a feeling of togetherness (80%) and gavea high motivation to study (83%). All of the students were also willing to completeanother e-mail course later, and all but one found e-mail study to be a suitablemethod for themselves. In addition, almost all of the students (93%) found it easyto use the mailing program and the text editor. The results in the two differentmodes of study were similar.
As a negative experience nearly all of the students (97%) got disappointed,at lea st sometimes, because their message was never commented on. The majority(67%) of the students found also face-to-face meetings to be necessary during thestudies. In addition, when the students were asked to estimate the amount ofwork e-mail study required a majority (60%, 18 out of 30) of them found it to begreater than in the traditional self-study of books; still, 73% (22 out of 30) of themregarded the amount of work as suitable compared with the three study weeks theyearned. The results were, again, similar in the seminar mode and the discussionmode.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
26 M. Marttunen
TABLE IV. The numbers and percentages of students (n = 30) reporting types of positive experiences withthe e-mail study in connection with the seminar (S) and the discussion (D) modes
S D Total
Types of positive experiences / / / %
Learning climate
Support of the group (very much, quite a lot or a little) 15 14 29 97A feeling of togetherness (obvious or to some extent) 13 11 24 80High motivation to study (very high or quite high) 13 12 25 83
Personal experiences
E-mail study is a suitable method for oneself (very suitableor quite suitable) 15 14 29 97
Willingness to complete another similar e-mail course (certainlyor probably) 15 15 30 100
Technical aspects
Ease of using the mailing program Elm (very easy or quite easy) 14 14 28 93Ease of using the text editor Emacs (very easy or quite easy) 14 14 28 93
The students were also asked by open-ended questions about the advantagesand disadvantages of the e-mail study (Table V), and they were asked for sugges-tions for developing it. A noteworthy finding was that advantages were mentionedmore often than disadvantages (Table V). The most commonly mentioned advan-tages were that e-mail enabled the planning of one's own timetable (57%), thate-mail made the participants reflect on the contents of the course (40%), and thatit offered an equal and free way to participate in the discussions (37%). The mostcommonly mentioned disadvantages were the large amount of work e-mail studydemanded (33%) and the lack of face-to-face contacts (27%). The students in thediscussion mode mentioned more often than those in the seminar mode that e-mailcaused them to reflect on the contents.
In addition, the most frequently mentioned suggestions for developing e-mailstudy were to pay more attention to the tutor's role (23%, 7 out of 30), to organizeface-to-face meetings during the study (17%, 5 out of 30) and to provide thestudents with more computer terminals (17%, 5 out of 30). Moreover, the tutor'srole should be made more active according to 43% (13 out of 30) of the students.The students suggested that the tutor should participate more in the discussions andpresent more critiques. The results were similar in the two different study modes.
Tutors' Perceptions of E-mail as a Study Method
The students' freedom to prepare their messages with sufficient time and indepen-dently of time and place restrictions were the main advantages of e-mail study thatthe tutors mentioned. As its weakness they stated the large amount of work itdemanded from them: according to the tutors, the most laborious tasks were to readthe messages and, particularly in the seminar groups, to compose the discussion
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Argumentation by E-mail 27
TABLE V. The numbers and percentages of students (n = 30) reporting advantages and disadvantages ofe-mail study in connection with the seminar (S) and the discussion (D) modes
S D TotalAdvantages/disadvantagesof e-mail study reported f f f %
AdvantagePossibility to plan one's own timetablesOffered a possibility and caused one to reflect on the contentsOffered an equal and free atmosphere for participationThe different points of view of other students taught one to
think about the content from various perspectivesOffered an alternative way to complete the courseOffered a possibility to exchange opinionsDeveloped computer-using skillsDeveloped skills in critical thinking and debatingAn independent way of studyingFreed from exam pressure
DisadvantageLaborious way to studyLack of face-to-face contactsProblems with the computers (terminals occupied,technical problems, unable to use)
Lack of discussion and critical comments
themes and to give regular feedback to the students. Other weaknesses they pointedout were the delay of the feedback the students gave to each other and that e-mailstudy, as an open way of working, offered the students a possibility to play truant.However, despite their criticisms, the tutors' general perceptions of the experimentwere positive and they regarded e-mail study as a feasible way of working in highereducation.
DISCUSSION
According to the results of the study, most of the students aimed to take a personalstance on the matters dealt with, presenting their own standpoints, commenting onother students' messages and paying special attention to the grounding. Moreover,the aim of the majority of the students was to participate actively in the discussionsand also to create new discussions. These results suggest that the e-mail studyenvironment encouraged and stimulated the students to engage in argumentativeinteraction. Furthermore, since the realized e-mail messages also included argumen-tation and students' debates, which they found to include constructive advising andconstructive critique, the results also suggest that e-mail provided the students withan appropriate way to practise their argumentation and critical thinking skills. Thisconclusion can be supported at least from two points of view. First, engaging in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
28 M. Marttunen
student-to-student interaction has been found to be positively linked with argumen-tation and critical thinking skills (Smith, 1977; Hart, 1990). Secondly, according toColbert & Biggers (1985; see also Littlefield, 1995), argumentative discussions anddebates promote the skill of assessing other people's standpoints and grounds, whichAtwater (1991) considers to be an essential characteristic of a person possessingmature argumentation skills. This conclusion is also supported by the previousresults of the same project (Marttunen, 1992, 1997a, b) as well as by other CMCstudies reporting on the benefits of e-mail conversations in practising argumentationand critical thinking (Ahern et al., 1992; Saiedian, 1993) and showing that possibil-ities to generate ideas (McConnell, 1990), to exchange opinions and to showagreement or disagreement (Saunders & Heyl, 1988) are essential advantages ofe-mail study.
In addition, the results suggested that the students were satisfied with e-mail asa study method: most of them found the learning climate to be supportive andmotivating and they were all willing to take another e-mail course. Moreover, manystudents reported that e-mail study made them reflect on the issues dealt with, andthat they could express things via computer that they would not be able to presentin a face-to-face situation. These findings support the previous characterizations ofe-mail studies as a learning environment which promotes independent thinking andoffers a motivating and democratic forum for interaction in which even shy andtimid people can express their thoughts (Hiltz & Meinke, 1989; Hardy et al., 1994).This is also important in terms of argumentation since in such an environmentinteraction is relatively free from, for example, the effect of gender, race, social statusand occupation because the comments and critiques are more likely to be directedtowards the ideas presented than their presenters (Hiltz & Meinke, 1989).
Although the results of the two different e-mail study set-ups—the tutor-ledseminar mode and the student-led discussion mode—were similar in the main theywere still different in two important respects: the students engaged in the discussionmode regarded the independence of studies and the need to reflect on the studycontents as advantages of e-mail study more often than students in the seminarmode. These results suggest that giving students the freedom to direct their ownstudies is a reasonable pedagogical decision in terms of learning. The recentliterature (Mason, 1988; Harasim, 1989; Seaton, 1993) emphasizing the advantagesof autonomous and self-directed learning in e-mail environments also draws thisconclusion. The findings are also noteworthy in terms of argumentation since,according to Applebee (1991), the students' own activity is important in the learningof argumentation skills. However, the number of the subjects in this study was low(n = 30) and, thus the results have to be regarded as tentative.
At least two of the limitations of self-reporting, the method employed in thestudy, should be addressed. First, according to Hample (1984), the main problemsof self-reporting are that people are not always capable of recalling their previousthoughts and that people often tend to give answers based on their previousknowledge or personal perceptions rather than on their cognitive experiences of thematters concerned. In the present study the students' memory was probably notmuch of a problem since the time interval between the e-mail studies and themoment of recall was short. Instead, it is possible that the students may not have
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Argumentation by E-mail 29
been explicitly conscious of their thoughts concerning, for example, their intentionswhen formulating their texts and their feelings for the learning climate all the timeduring the studies. Hence, when they were asked to recall things that they may nothave experienced, it is possible that the researcher might have indirectly persuadedthe subjects that positive answers were expected. Secondly, the subjects werevolunteers, and thus they do not represent the average Finnish university student.Consequently, the subjects of this study might have been more interested incomputers and in using them than average students, which may have led to morepositive outcomes than would have occurred with randomly sampled subjects (seeHiltz, 1990).
In view of future e-mail applications aimed at promoting argumentation inhigher-education studies a discussion of the negative perceptions encountered in thisexperiment is important.
First, the lack of face-to-face contacts was found to be a problem when usinge-mail in this study; this was also found in some earlier studies (Holden &Wedman,1993; Bürge, 1994). In order to enrich interaction and overcome this problem someface-to-face meetings could be introduced occasionally during e-mail studies, as wasdone in some previous experiments (cf. Hiltz & Meinke, 1989). Yet, althoughface-to-face appointments surely bring students closer to each other and, thus, makethe learning atmosphere more pleasant, they might simultaneously hinder argumen-tation during the discussions. The results of this study suggest that the students hadmore courage to express their opinions in an anonymous e-mail environment thanin face-to-face settings. Hence, although there may be cultural differences in thisrespect, the benefits of fact-to-face meetings during e-mail studies should not betaken for granted (see Davie & Wells, 1991).
Secondly according to the tutors, a problem of e-mail study was that thestudents were unfamiliar with the nature and rules of scientific discussion, whichwas manifest from some of the low level of argumentation in their texts. Thisproblem could be overcome by applying argumentative e-mail discussions in thestudies of more experienced students who have already learned the basic skills ofargumentation (see Pascarella, 1989). On the other hand, however, my personalview is that undergraduate students should become familiar with the nature ofscientific discussions during the early stages of their studies and that engaging themin critical debates via e-mail provides an appropriate method for doing this. Hence,argumentative e-mail studies could be applied in the studies of both freshmen andmore experienced students. However, when evaluating the outcomes, the stage ofthe students' studies should be taken into account: in the outcomes of advancedstudents the level of argumentation can be assessed more critically than in the caseof novices whose outputs should, rather, be examined as their preliminary efforts tobecome familiar with academic discourse.
Finally, the students in this study thought that the tutor's role should be moreactive. In addition, the students found the amount of critique and personal feedbackthe tutors gave them to be inadequate. Obviously, particularly in the freshmenstudies, a tutor should provide students with sufficient content-related commentsand personal feedback. The tutor should also promote the students' argumentation
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
30 M. Marttunen
by presenting them with examples of solid arguments and well-supported cirtiquesin their own input. However, the tutor should not put this role into practice bygiving direct advice and orders but, rather, by acting as a co-learner and a facilitatorof studies (see Davie & Wells, 1991). In this 'intellectual role', as Mason (1991) putsit, the tutor should provide the students with summaries of the discussions andfeedback of their texts as well as encouraging them to present their own arguments.The tutor could also provoke arguments by presenting challenging and provocativequestions that divide opinions among the discussants. Above all, the tutor's activitiesshould not hinder the realization of the widely recognized benefits of e-mail studies:students' autonomy and the provision of possibilities of engaging in discussionsself-directively.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Professor Raimo Konttinen and Dr Sauli Takala from theUniversity of Jyväskylä for reading the manuscript and for making many very usefulcomments relating to both the content and the language of the text. The author alsowishes to thank Mr Charles Jennings from the Southampton Institute of HigherEducation for his advice on the special vocabulary of information technologies.
NOTES
[1] In the Finnish higher-education system 'a study week' is a concept used as a measure of the extentof studies. One study week corresponds to about 40 hours of work.
[2] The student's actual name has been changed.
REFERENCES
AHERN, T.C., PECK, K. & LAYCOCK, M. (1992) The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediateddiscussion, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, pp. 291-309.
APPLEBEE, A.N. (1991) Informal reasoning and writing instruction, in: J.F. Voss, D.N. PERKINS, & J.W.SEGAL (Eds) Informal Reasoning and Education (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
ATWATER, T. (1991) Critical thinking in basic US government classes, Political Science and Politics, 24,pp. 209-211.
BOYD, G. (1987) Emancipative educational technology, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication,16, pp. 167-172.
BROADY, D. (1986) Piilo-opetussunnitelma (The hidden curriculum) (Tampere, Vastapaino).BURGE, E.J. (1994) Learning in computer conferenced context: the learners' perspective, Journal of
Distance Education, 9, pp. 19-43.CHARLTON, S. (1993) Meeting educational needs in an information society. Delivering an on-line
critical thinking course, in: G. DAVIES & B. SAMWAYS (Eds) Teleteaching. Proceedings of the IFIP TC3Third Teleteaching Conference, TeleTeaching 93 (Amsterdam, Elsevier Science).
CLARK, G.C. (1992) Debate, electronic style, Instructor, February, pp. 57-58.COLBERT, K.R. & BIGGERS, T. (1985) The Academic and Practical Values of Debating (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 265 586).COLLIER, K.G. (1984) Higher education as preparation for the handling of controversial issues, Studies
of Higher Education, 9, pp. 27-35.CRONBACH, L.J. (1990) Essential of Psychological Testing, 5th edn (New York, Harper Collins).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Argumentation by E-mail 31
DAVIE, L.D. & WELLS, R. (1991) Empowering the learner through computer-mediated communication,American Journal of Distance Education, 5, pp. 15-23.
EASTMOND, D.V. (1992) Effective facilitation of computer conferencing, Continuing Higher EducationReview, 56, pp. 23-34.
FRIEDMAN, L.B. & MCCULLOUGH, J. (1992) Computer conferencing as a support mechanism forteacher-researchers in rural high schools, in: M.D. WAGGONER (Ed.) Empowering Networks. Com-puter conferencing in education (New Jersey, Educational Technology Publications).
HALPERN, D.F. (1993) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction, Journal of GeneralEducation, 42, pp. 238-254.
HAMPLE, D. (1984) On the use of self-reports, Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20,pp. 140-153.
HANSEN, N. & GLADFELTER, J. (1995) Teaching graduate-level seminars using electronic mail: creativedistance education, Deosnews, 5.
HARASIM, L. (1987) Teaching and learning on-line: issues in computer mediated graduate courses,Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16, pp. 117-135.
HARASIM, L. (1989) On-line education: a new domain, in: R. MASON & A. KAYE (Eds) Mindweave.Communication, computers and distance education (Oxford, Pergamon Press).
HARASIM, L.M. (1990) On-line education: an environment for collaboration and intellectual ampli-fication, in: L. HARASIM (Ed.) Online Education: perspectives on a new environment (New York,Praeger).
HARDY, V., HODGSON, V. & MCCONNELL, D. (1994) Computer conferencing: a new medium forinvestigating issues in gender and learning, Higher Education, 28, pp. 403-418.
HART, K.A. (1990) Teaching Thinking in college. Accent on improving college teaching and learning (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 332 613).
HILTZ, S.R. (1990) Evaluating the virtual classroom, in: L. HARASIM (Ed.) Online Education. Perspectiveson a new environment (New York, Praeger).
HILTZ, S.R. & MEINKE, R. (1989) Teaching sociology in a virtual classroom, Teaching Sociology, 17,pp. 431-446.
HINTIKKA, J. & BACHMAN, J. (1991) What if ...? Toward excellence in reasoning (London, MayfieldPublishing).
HOLDEN, M.C. & WEDMAN, J.F. (1993) Future issues of computer-mediated communication: theresults of a Delphi study, Educational Technology Reseach and Development, 41, pp. 5-24.
KAYE, T., MASON, R. & HARASIM, L. (1989) Computer Conferencing in the Academic Environment, ReportNo. 91 (Milton Keynes, Institute of Educational Technology, Centre for Information Technologyin Education).
KUEHN, S.A. (1993) Communication innovation on a BBS: a content analysis, Interpersonal Computingand Technology, 1.
LEPPÄNEN, S. & KALAJA, P. (1995) Experimenting with computer conferencing in English for academicpurposes, ELT Journal, 49, pp. 26-36.
LITTLEFIELD, R.S. (1995) Teaching argumentation and debate skills to young children: bridging theoryand practice, in: F.H. VAN EEMEREN, R. GROOTENDORST, J.A. BLAIR & C.A. WILLARD (Eds)
Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Volume III. Reconstruction and Application(Amsterdam, International Centre for the Study of Argumentation).
MARTTUNEN, M. (1997a) Teaching argumentation skills in an electronic mail environment, Innovationsin Education and Training International, in press.
MARTTUNEN, M. (1997b) Electronic mail as a pedagogical delivery system: an analysis of the learningof argumentation, Research in Higher Education, in press.
MARTTUNEN, M. (1992) Commenting on written arguments as a part of argumentation skills—compari-son between students engaged in traditional vs on-line study, Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearch, 36, pp. 289-302.
MARTTUNEN, M. (1994) Assessing argumentation skills among Finnish university students, Learningand Instruction, 4, pp. 175-191.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
32 M. Marttunen
MASON, R. (1988) Computer conferencing: a contribution to self-directed learning, British Journal ofEducational Technology, 19, pp. 28-41.
MASON, R. (1991) Moderating educational computer conferencing, Deosnews, 1.MASON, R. (1993) Designing collaborative work for online courses, in: G. DAVIES & B. SAMWAYS (Eds)
Teleteaching. Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 third teleteaching conference, teleTeaching 93 (Amsterdam,Elsevier Science).
MCCONNELL, D. (1990) Case study: the educational use of computer conferencing, Educational andTraining Technology International, 27, pp. 190-208.
MEYERS, C. (1986) Teaching Students to Think Critically (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).NEWMAN, D.R., JOHNSON, C , COCHRANE, C. & WEBB, B. (1996) An experiment in group learning
technology: evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported seminars, Interper-sonal Computing and Technology, 1, pp. 57-74.
PASCARELLA, E.T. (1989) The development of critical thinking: does college make a difference? Journalof College Student Development, 30, pp. 19-26.
PAULSEN, M. (1992) From Bulletin Boards in Electronic Universities. Distance Education, Computer-mediatedCommunication, and Online Education, Research Monographs 7 (The Pennsylvania State University,The American Center for the Study of Distance Education).
PUGH, S.L. (1993) Using case studies and collaborative computer-assisted communication to suportconceptual learning in a teacher-education course on critical reading, Educational Technology, 33,pp. 30-38.
RIEDL, R. (1989) Patterns in computer-mediated discussions, in: R. MASON & A. KAYE (Eds) Mi-ndweave. Communication, computers and distance education (Oxford, Pergamon Press).
SAIEDIAN, H. (1993) An interactive computer-based conferencing system to accommodate students'learning process, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 21, pp. 109-123.
SAUNDERS, C.S. & HEYL, J.E. (1988) Evaluating educational computer conferencing, Journal of SystemsManagement, 39, pp. 33-37.
SEATON, W.J. (1993) Computer-mediated communication and student self-directed learning, OpenLearning, 8, pp. 49-54.
SMITH, D.G. (1977) College classroom interactions and critical thinking, Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 69, pp. 180-190.
STEINBERG, E.R. (1992) The potential of computer-based telecommunications for instruction, Journalof Computer-Based Instruction, 19, pp. 42-46.
TAKALA, T. (Ed.) (1989) Kasvatussosiologian perusteet (Basics of educational sociology) (Learning Materials4) (Jyväskylä, University of Jyväskylä, Continuing Education Centre).
THOMAS, R. (1994) Electronic communication in mass distance education—a case history based onOpen University experience, in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Distance Educationin Russia, ICDED'94, Distance Learning and New Technologies in Education (Moscow, Association forInternational Education).
TOULMIN, S., RIEKE, R. & JANIK, A. (1984) An introduction to reasoning (New York, Macmillan).WELLS, R. (1993) The use of computer-mediated communication in distance education: progress,
problems, and trends, in: G. DAVIES & B. SAMWAYS (Eds) Teleteaching. Proceedings of the IFIP TC3third teleteaching conference, TeleTeaching 93 (Amsterdam, Elsevier Science).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:37
15
Oct
ober
201
4
