论证作为新一代科学标准所倡导的教育实践之一，被视为21世纪的关键能力，是培养学习者科学素养的重要途经。有效的协作论证不仅可以促进学生的有意义学习，还可以培养学生的批判性思维与协作能力。然而，由于学习者在论证过程中会遇到来自认知和社会情感方面的诸多挑战，所以教学实践中的协作论证并不是总能充分发挥其优势。为了更好地理解认知和社会情感对论证质量的影响，许多研究者开始关注对论证过程的分析。目前，已有研究对认知过程的关注较多，对社会情感过程的探讨较少。其中，认知过程的相关研究主要聚焦于论点构建能力，缺乏对话语策略的关注；社会情感的相关研究以质性分析为主，难以呈现社会情感在整个论证活动中的变化情况。此外，尽管学者认为协作论证中的认知过程与社会情感过程相互影响，但鲜有研究定量地分析认知过程与社会情感过程之间的关系。因此，本研究采用定性与定量相结合的方法，分别探究话语策略和社会情感互动在高低论证质量组间的不同特征，同时，挖掘话语策略和社会情感互动在高低论证质量组间的不同时序模式，基于此，揭示出促进或阻碍论证质量提高的话语策略及社会情感的关键特征及时序模式，从而帮助教学实践者更好地组织与开展协作论证活动。

本研究招募北京某高校55名本科生被试，将其分为组内观点异质的14个小组进行协作论证。研究收集小组的视频录像及论证图，采用内容分析、滞后序列分析和认知网络分析等方法来揭示话语策略、社会情感、以及二者间关系在高低论证质量组间的差异。结果表明：（1）在话语策略方面，Clarify、Reject、Rebuttal、Counter-UC、Agree、Meta、Content-M在高低质量组间存在（边缘）显著差异；（2）在社会情感方面，高质量组的积极社会情感互动较多，而低质量组的消极社会情感互动较多；P2（幽默/笑声/微笑）和N1（打断）是影响论证质量的重要因素；高质量组所形成的积极社会情感氛围有利于成功缓解由消极互动引发的人际关系紧张，而低质量组的消极社会情感氛围导致这种人际关系紧张无法被有效缓解；（3）在话语策略与社会情感的关系方面，高质量组成员即使在批评和反驳同伴时，也能保持积极的社会情感互动，从而使同伴愿意让步并达成共识；而低质量组的批判性讨论则伴随着较多的消极社会情感互动，容易激化人际关系矛盾，同伴之间不愿意通过充分讨论论点的优缺点及其适用范围来达成共识。

最后，本研究根据研究结论为教学实践者提供了开展协作论证活动的建议，并对未来研究提出了展望。

As one of the educational practices advocated by NGSS, argumentation is regarded as the key ability in the 21st century and an important way to cultivate learners' scientific literacy. Effective collaborative argumentation can not only promote students' meaningful learning, but also cultivate students' critical thinking and collaboration ability. However, students will encounter cognitive and socio-emotional challenges in the process of argumentation, so collaborative argumentation in classroom practice cannot always give full play to its advantages. In order to better understand the impact of cognition and social emotion on the argumentation quality, many researchers began to pay attention to the analysis of the argumentation process. At present, the research on the influencing factors of argumentation quality pays more attention to cognitive processes and less to socio-emotional processes. Among them, the research on cognitive processes mainly focuses on the ability of argument construction, and lacks the attention of discourse strategy; The research on social emotional interaction mainly uses qualitative analysis, which is difficult to reveal the development process of socio-emotional interaction in the whole argumentation activity. In addition, although researchers believe that the cognitive processes and socio-emotional processes in collaborative argumentation are inseparable and interactive, few studies quantitatively analyze the relationship between cognitive processes and socio-emotional processes. Therefore, this study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to summarize the key characteristics and temporal sequences that promote or hinder the improvement of argumentation quality by comparing the differences of characteristics and temporal sequences in discourse strategy and socio-emotional interaction between the high- and low-argumentation quality groups in collaborative argumentation, so as to help teachers better carry out collaborative argumentation activities in classroom practice.

Fifty-five Chinese college students were arranged into 14 groups and participated in a 90-minute face-to-face collaborative argumentation activity. Using an integrated method of content analysis, as well as lag sequential analysis and epistemic network analysis, students’ video recordings and argument maps were coded and analyzed to explore the differences in discourse strategies, socio-emotional interaction, and the relationship between discourse strategies and socio-emotional interaction between high- and low-quality groups. The results indicated: (1) in term of discourse strategy, there are (marginal) significant differences in seven discourse strategies between high- and low-quality groups, which are Reject, Content-M, Clarify, Counter-UC, Rebuttal, Agree and Meta; (2) in term of socio-emotional interaction, more positive socio-emotional interactions were found in high-performing groups while more negative socio-emotional interactions were discovered in low-performing groups. Using humor/laughter to express disagreement or using smiles to convey kindness (P2) and interrupting others (N1) were more essential factors that may affect argumentation quality in the Chinese context. The sequential analysis showed the negative atmosphere in low-performing groups caused by repeated negative socio-emotional interactions resulted in failure to release negative interactions. In high-performing groups, the transitions between positive socio-emotional interactions contributed to a positive climate and allowed the potential tension caused by negative interactions to be addressed. (3) in terms of the relationship of discourse strategy and socio-emotional interaction, it shows that even when criticizing and refuting partners, members in high-quality group can successfully ease the tension of interpersonal relations through positive socio-emotional interaction, so as to create a friendly socio-emotional atmosphere, resulting in making students willing to give in and reach a consensus; while the critical discussion of the low-quality group is accompanied by more negative socio-emotional interaction, which is easy to intensify interpersonal contradictions. As a result, peers pepper each other with arguments without discussing the bounds, merits or faults of each argument and unwilling to reach a consensus.

Finally, according to the research conclusion, this study provides suggestions for teachers to carry out collaborative argumentation activities, and puts forward the prospect of future research.