Cited by 4Artificial Intelligence in EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Generative AI-assisted Collaborative Argumentation: Implications for the Argumentation Process and Outcome

Liu, Wenping, Cui, Xin·2024·2024 4th International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET)

Abstract

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, the field of education has undergone significant changes. In traditional collaborative argumentation, students often find it difficult to argue from multiple perspectives due to insufficient prior knowledge, and generative AI makes argumentation possible. The study invites university students to participate in online collaborative learning. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods is adopted, aiming to deeply analyze the impact of generative AI-assisted collaborative argumentation on the quality of argumentation and students' perceptions. The results of the study show that generative AI feedback not only promotes multi-perspective thinking, critical thinking, and organizational skills but also enhances students' confidence and motivation in argumentation. However, there is also the possibility of a lack of a sense of dialogue and an increase in student burden. The article verifies the effectiveness of generative AI in collaborative argumentation and provides new insights into its broader application in education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icet62460.2024.10868171

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A significant number of studies employed rubrics and performance-based assessments to evaluate CT in students' outputs, including essays, chatbot interactions, and project submissions.

    “A significant number of studies employed rubrics and performance-based assessments to evaluate CT in students' outputs, including essays, chatbot interactions, and project submissions [75,76,78,87,88].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 20 · Cited by 4

Authors
Liu, W., & Cui, X.
Affiliations
Jiangnan University (CN)
Venue
2024 4th International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2024-09-13
Pages
220-225
OpenAlex
W4407213799
Cited by
4
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.52
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
generative AI, collaborative argumentation, AI-generated feedback, online collaborative learning, multi-perspective thinking, critical thinking, argument quality, student self-confidence, student motivation, student perceptions, university students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review