Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Incorporating generative conversational agents into collaborative argumentation: Do different customization strategies matter?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Incorporating generative conversational agents into collaborative argumentation: Do different customization strategies matter?
Do you wish to request the book?
Incorporating generative conversational agents into collaborative argumentation: Do different customization strategies matter?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Incorporating generative conversational agents into collaborative argumentation: Do different customization strategies matter?
2025
Overview
Collaborative argumentation allows groups to express, criticize, and integrate arguments to achieve the co-construction of collective knowledge. However, students often face challenges when proposing diversified arguments, gathering evidence, and rebutting others reasonably. Incorporating generative conversational agents (GCAs) into collaborative argumentation has been demonstrated to effectively broaden the perspective of the argument and to stimulate the generation of new ideas. For this study, we designed rhetorical argumentation customized strategies (RACS), dialectical argumentation customized strategies (DACS) for collaborative argumentation, and a mixed-strategy (RACS+DACS), and compared their effects on the quality of argumentation mappings and argumentation discourse patterns. A total of 121 first-year postgraduate students were enrolled: 33 for the control group, 33 for the RACS group, 27 for the DACS group, and 28 for the mixed-strategy group. Results found that: (1) Regarding the quality of argumentation mappings, DACS could help students select high-quality evidence and learn the logical skills from evidence reasoning to claims. In addition, the mixed-strategy could help students search for multiple types of evidence to support their position; (2) Regarding argumentation discourse patterns, in the characteristics of the structural dimension, DACS could help students use evidence to support higher-order claims during argumentation. The mixed-strategy could help students use evidence to rebut others' arguments in group discourses. However, no significant differences were detected among the four groups in the characteristics of the social dimension.
Publisher
International Forum of Educational Technology ＆ Society,International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan,International Forum of Educational Technology & Society
