Related Data for: The role of peer feedback on the quality of students’ computer-supported collaborative argumentation

The importance of peer feedback in collaborative argumentation has been well-established. However, little is known about the extent to which peer feedback is associated with the quality of collaborative argumentation. Particularly, there is limited evidence for how specific types of feedback is related to argumentation quality. This study investigated peer feedback against four dimensions of collaborative argumentation quality (clarity, multiple perspectives, selection of evidence, and elaboration and depth). Collaborative argumentation quality was also compared against peer feedback types (appropriateness, specificity, and elaboration). In this design-based research (DBR), a class of 40 secondary Grade Three students in Singapore participated in three cycles of argumentation and peer feedback activities using the AppleTree online learning environment, each cycle consisting of five collaborative learning phases scripted by the Spiral Model of Collaborative Knowledge Improvement (SMCKI): Individual ideation, group synergy, peer critique, group refinement, and individual achievement. Scaffolds of sentence openers and reflections were added in Cycles 2 and 3. Quantitative analyses comparisons of argumentation and per feedback quality across three cycles revealed that except for the multiple perspectives dimension of argumentation quality, students performed significantly better in forming their argumentations and giving peer feedback. Additionally, the quality of argumentation improved significantly over the three cycles when accounting for peer feedback types as correlates, and vice versa.