Fostering dialogic peer feedback in synchronous online discussions: the effect of argumentation scaffold and role assignment

Dialogic peer feedback in synchronous online discussions provides multiple educational benefits; however, its implementation is often constrained by students’ cognitive and interactional limitations. To address this issue, this study investigated the effects of argumentation scaffold and role assignment on students’ emotion, social metacognition, and discourse patterns in dialogic peer feedback. A quasi-experimental design was employed, involving 98 undergraduates assigned to four conditions: (a) dialogic peer feedback only (DF; control group; n = 24); (b) scaffolded dialogic peer feedback (SDF; argumentation scaffold only; n = 24); (c) role-assigned dialogic peer feedback (RDF; role assignment only; n = 25); and (d) scaffolded, role-assigned dialogic peer feedback (SRDF; combination of argumentation scaffold and role assignment; n = 25). Results showed that argumentation scaffold enhanced students’ positive emotion, social metacognition knowledge, and social metacognition judgment, whereas adding role assignment reduced these benefits. Discourse patterns further indicated that the SDF promoted deeper argumentation, the RDF increased participation, and the SRDF supported higher-level cognitive engagement. These findings suggest that argumentation scaffold and role assignment shape dialogic peer feedback in distinct ways, with scaffold strengthening the quality of reasoning and role assignment redistributing interactional participation.