Argumentative communication in cooperative learning groups: Members’ use of evidence and non-evidenceFootnote^*

* The manuscript was presented at 2015 International Communication Association Conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and received a Top Poster Presentation Award from the Instructional & Development Interest Group.

References

• Allen, M., Berkowitz, S., Hunt, S., & Louden, A. (1999). A meta-analysis of the impact of forensics and communication education on critical thinking. Communication Education, 48, 18–30. doi: 10.1080/03634529909379149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, T. H., & Plax, T. G. (1999). Group communication in the formal educational context. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory & research (pp. 493–515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (2009). Intersubjective and intrasubjective rationalities in pedagogical debates: Realizing what one thinks. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Guided transformation of knowledge in classrooms (pp. 145–158). New York, NY: Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction series.
   Google Scholar
• Baumann, M. R., & Bonner, B. L. (2013). Member awareness of expertise, information sharing, information weighting, and group decision making. Small Group Research, 44, 532–562. doi: 10.1177/1046496413494415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonner, B. L., & Bolinger, A. R. (2013). Separating the confident from the correct: Leveraging member knowledge in groups to improve decision making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 214–221. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonner, B. L., & Bolinger, A. R. (2014, September). Bring out the best in your team. Harvard Business Review, 704. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/09/bring-out-the-best-in-your-team
   Google Scholar
• Bonner, B. L., Okhuysen, G. A., & Sondak, H. (2011). Intra-group decision-making in inter-group negotiation: Majority/minority effects and hawkishness of member preferences. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 246–257. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0023757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottger, P. C. (1984). Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 214–221. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (vol. 1, pp. 7–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Considine, J. R., Meyers, R. A., & Timmerman, C. E. (2006). Evidence use in group quiz discussions: How do students support preferred choices? Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 17(3), 65–89.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, D. J., & Wilson, P. A. (1979). How to argue: An introduction to logical thinking. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J. (1999). Effects of cognitive ability, task knowledge, and conflict of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 608–634. doi: 10.1177/104649649903000506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franz, T. M., & Larson, J. R. (2002). The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion. Small Group Research, 33, 383–411. doi: 10.1177/104649640203300401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabbert, B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Cooperative learning, group-to-individual transfer, process gain and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of Psychology, 120, 265–278. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1986.10545253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. (1998). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, R. B. (2007). Dialogic communication in collaborative problem-solving groups. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 1–19. doi: 10.20429/ijsotl.2007.010104
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, S., Allen, M., Jackson, S., & Patrell, D. (1985). Can ordinary actors recognize a logical conclusion if it comes up and bites them on the butt? In J. Cox, M. Sillars, & G. Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the fourth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 665–674). Annandale, VI: Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365–379. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (8th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Education, 12, 5–24.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (1989). Controversy within decision making situations. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 251–264). New York, NY: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Taylor, B. (1993). Impact of cooperative and individualistic learning on high-ability students’ achievement, self-esteem, and social acceptance. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 839–844. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1993.9713946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439–457. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S., Allen, M., & Cole, A. W. (2016). Testing the evidence effect of additive cues model (ACM). Studies in Communication Sciences, 16, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.scoms.2016.08.002
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90–104. doi: 10.1080/13546780600625447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, D. R. (2012). Peer feedback processes and individual accountability in team-based learning. In M. Sweet & L. K. Michaelsen (Eds.), Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities (pp. 51–62). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, T., Anderson, R. C., Jadallah, M., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Kim, I., Kuo, L.-J., … Li, Y. (2015). Social influences on children’s development of relational thinking during small-group discussions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 83–97. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wagner, C. (1987). Expert judgment and creativity. In J. Mumpower, L. D. Phillips, O. Renn, & V. R. R. Uppuluri (Eds.), Expert judgment and expert systems (pp. 173–193). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A. (1989). Testing persuasive argument theory’s predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence. Communication Monographs, 56, 112–132. doi: 10.1080/03637758909390254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A. (2008, April). Content analysis. Presentation presented to the University of Wisconsin System Leadership Site. Retrieved from https://slideplayer.com/slide/6233022
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65, 261–281. doi: 10.1080/03637759809376454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. E. (1990). Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of persuasive arguments theory and an alternative structurational view. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 14 (pp. 268–302). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key to harnessing the power of small groups in higher education. In S. Kadel, & J. Keehner (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A Sourcebook for higher education, 2 (pp. 65–81). State College, PA: National Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Michaelsen, L. K., Black, R. H., & Fink, L. D. (1996). What every faculty developer needs to know about learning groups. To Improve the Academy, 15, 31–57. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/361 doi: 10.1002/j.2334-4822.1996.tb00301.x
   Google Scholar
• Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2002). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 834–839. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., & Tsoukias, A. (2010). An argumentation theory and decision aiding. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. R. Figueira (Eds.), Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis (pp. 177–208). Medford, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135–148. doi:10.2307/3172601 doi: 10.1177/002224378902600201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinard, J. C. (1998). The persuasive effects of testimonial assertion evidence. In M. Allen, & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasive: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 69–86). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27. doi: 10.1177/016235329001400103
   Google Scholar
• Salazar, A. J. (1995). Understanding the synergistic effects of communication in small groups: Making the most out of group member abilities. Small Group Research, 26, 169–199. doi: 10.1177/1046496495262002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Sibley, J., & Ostafichuk, P. (2014). Getting started with team-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651–663. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, D. D., & Strasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.619
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straus, S. G. (1999). Testing a typology of tasks: An empirical validation of McGrath’s (1984) group task circumplex. Small Group Research, 30, 166–187. doi: 10.1177/104649649903000202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 259–274. doi: 10.3102/00028312019002259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, W. E., Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991). Member competence, group interaction, and group decision-making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 803–809. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607–651. doi: 10.3102/00028312035004607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., & Cullian, L. K. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 411–423. doi: 10.3102/00028312020003411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943–989. doi: 10.3102/00028312039004943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum G. M., & Stasser G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yetton, P. W., & Bottger, P. C. (1982). Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 307–321. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(82)90248-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegelmueller, G. W., & Dause, C. A. (1975). Argumentation: Inquiry and advocacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
   Google Scholar