Development Of Argumentation Skills Research Articles

A cross‐cultural study of the effect of a graph‐oriented computer‐assisted project‐based learning environment on middle school students' science knowledge and argumentation skills

AbstractThe purpose of this mixed‐methods study was to explore how seventh graders in a suburban school in the United States and sixth graders in an urban school in Taiwan developed argumentation skills and science knowledge in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application (GOCAA). A total of 42 students comprised the treatment condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a GOCAA. Of these 42 students, 21 were located in the United States and 21 were located in Taiwan. A total of 26 students comprised the control condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment without the GOCAA. Of these 26 students, 15 were in the United States and 11 were in Taiwan. In each country, verbal collaborative argumentation was recorded and the students' post‐essays were collected. A one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each measure of science knowledge about alternative energies. The results showed a significant treatment effect for the outcome of scientific explanation among U.S. students, while among Taiwanese students, a significant treatment effect on scientific facts was observed. A one‐way ANOVA was additionally conducted for each measure of argumentation skills and a significant treatment effect on counterarguments and rebuttals was observed among the U.S. students, while in Taiwan, a significant treatment effect on reasoning and rebuttals was observed. A qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the GOCAA supported students' development of argumentation skills in different countries. This study found distinct argumentation patterns between the U.S. and Taiwanese intervention teams. Additionally, a distinct gender difference in the use of evidence and division of labour was noted when the Taiwanese teams were compared with the U.S. teams, which may be explained by cultural differences. This study concluded that, in both the United States and Taiwan, a project‐based learning environment incorporating a GOCAA was effective in improving students' science knowledge and developing their scientific argumentation skills.

Developing Argumentation Strategies in Electronic Dialogs: Is Modeling Effective?

The study presented here examines how interacting with a more capable interlocutor influences use of argumentation strategies in electronic discourse. To address this question, 54 young adolescents participating in an intervention centered on electronic peer dialogs were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control condition. In both conditions, pairs who held the same position on a social issue engaged in a series of electronic dialogs with pairs who held an opposing position. In the experimental condition, in some dialogs, unbeknownst to them (because dialog took place electronically), the opponent was a more capable (“expert”) adult. Dialogs in the control condition were only with peers. Argumentation strategies of the experimental group who argued with the “expert” showed immediate strategy improvements in their subsequent peer dialogs, improvement absent in the control group (Cohen's d = 1.12). In particular, the experimental group showed greater use of counterargument in general and advanced forms of counterargument (undermining) that challenges the deeper premises or reasoning on which an argument is based. Implications with respect to mechanisms of change in the development of argumentation skills are considered.

Litigación oral: estrategia de enseñanza para el desarrollo de competencias argumentativas en la formación de profesores de educación secundaria

The aim of this paper is to analyze the effectiveness of oral litigation as a teaching strategy for the development of argumentative skills in secondary education teacher training. It is based on the results of an exploratory case study conducted with 162 students who participated in the implementation of a strategy, with a design that took into account problem-based learning, the Toulmin argumentation model, curriculum competence approach, cognitive and situated learning, and contextual foundations of education. For the development of written and oral arguments, presenting documentary evidence was considered in the context of simulating a Litigation. To evaluate the experience, a focus group was conducted with key informants, who felt that the strategy contributed to the development of conceptual, procedural and attitudinal learning. It is concluded that the development of argumentation skills in teacher training students is key in the design of teaching strategies, the use and mobilization of the knowledge acquired, the acquisition contexts, and preferably of authentic or real application.

The effect of a graph‐oriented computer‐assisted project‐based learning environment on argumentation skills

AbstractThe purpose of this quasi‐experimental study was to explore how seventh graders in a suburban school in the United States developed argumentation skills and science knowledge in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application. A total of 54 students (three classes) comprised this treatment condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application, whereas a total of 57 students (three classes) comprised the control condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment without this graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application. Verbal collaborative argumentation was recorded and the students' post essays were collected. A random effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted and a significant difference in science knowledge about alternative energies between conditions was observed. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted and there was a significant difference in counterargument and rebuttal skills between conditions. A qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application supported students' development of argumentation skills and affected the quality of collaborative argumentation. The difference in argumentation structure and quality of argumentation between conditions might explain a difference in science knowledge as well counterargument and rebuttal skills (argumentation) between both conditions. This study concluded that a project‐based learning environment incorporating a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application was effective in improving students' science knowledge and developing their scientific argumentation skills.

Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-year Intervention Study

Argumentation is increasingly recognized as a fundamental intellectual skill, but evidence suggests that few adolescents or adults are skilled arguers. This article reports on an extended (3-year, twice weekly) intervention designed to afford dense practice in dialogic argumentation to middle-school students from traditionally academically disadvantaged backgrounds, with the goal of supporting development of argumentation skills. Students collaborated with peers who shared their positions on a series of social issues, both in small-group argument-building and reflective activities and in electronic dialogues with a succession of opposing-side peers. Annual assessments of individual argumentative skills on new topics showed students gaining in argumentative discourse skills across all 3 years of the intervention. Continued gains during the 3rd year, however, were concentrated among students who began with the least skill, highlighting the potentially equalizing role of such an intervention.

The Relationship of Discipline Background to Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues

In the present STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)-driven society, socioscientific issues (SSI) have become a focus globally and SSI research has grown into an important area of study in science education. Since students attending the social and science programs have a different focus in their studies and research has shown that students attending a science program are less familiar with argumentation practice, we make a comparison of the supporting reasons social science and science majors use in arguing different SSI with the goal to provide important information for pedagogical decisions about curriculum and instruction. As an analytical framework, a model termed SEE-SEP covering three aspects (of knowledge, value, and experiences) and six subject areas (of sociology/culture, economy, environment/ecology, science, ethics/morality, and policy) was adopted to analyze students’ justifications. A total of 208 upper secondary students (105 social science majors and 103 science majors) from Sweden were invited to justify and expound their arguments on four SSI including global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMO), nuclear power, and consumer consumption. The results showed that the social science majors generated more justifications than the science majors, the aspect of value was used most in students’ argumentation regardless of students’ discipline background, and justifications from the subject area of science were most often presented in nuclear power and GMO issues. We conclude by arguing that engaging teachers from different subjects to cooperate when teaching argumentation on SSI could be of great value and provide students from both social science and science programs the best possible conditions in which to develop argumentation skills.

The significance of the origin of physical chemistry for physical chemistry education: the case of electrolyte solution chemistry

Physical Chemistry's birth was fraught with controversy, a controversy about electrolyte solution chemistry which has much to say about how scientific knowledge originates, matures, and responds to challenges. This has direct implications for the way our students are educated in physical chemistry in particular and science in general. The incursion of physical measurement and mathematics into a discipline which had been largely defined within a laboratory of smells, bangs, and colours was equivalent to the admission into chemistry of the worship of false gods according to one chemist. The controversy can be classified as a battle betweendissociationistson the one hand andassociationistson the other; between theEuropeanson the one hand and theBritishon the other; between theionistson the one hand and thehydrationistson the other. Such strong contrasts set the ideal atmosphere for the development of argumentation skills. The fact that a compromise position, first elaborated in the late 19th century, has recently enhanced the explanatory capacity for electrolyte solution chemistry is challenging but one in which students can participate to their benefit.

Developing Face-to-Face Argumentation Skills: Does Arguing on the Computer Help?

Arguing on the computer was used as a method to promote development of face-to-face argumentation skills in middle schoolers. In the study presented, sixth graders engaged in electronic dialogues with peers on a controversial topic and in some reflective activities based on transcriptions of the dialogues. Although participants initially exhibited limited ability in arguing both face-to-face and on the computer, by the end of the intervention, they exhibited significant advances in both discussion modes. The gains of practice in the electronic mode—increased levels of counterarguments and rebuttals—successfully transferred to the face-to-face mode. This suggests a generality in developing argument skills.

Factors in the development of higher levels of reading literacy: Argumentation skills in educational practice

The highest levels of reading literacy, as defined within PISA study, include the ability to use various cognitive skills, with argumentative skills being one of the most important among them. In the present study our goal was to reveal some of the factors that influence the development of argumentative skills in Serbian schools. We investigated the extent to which argumentative skills are required in PISA reading literacy tasks, as well as the specific difficulties our students have faced on these tasks, through an analysis of student performance. We also conducted an analysis of the educational practice - by doing in-depth interviews with teachers and content analysis of students' textbooks. The results revealed that: 1) Argumentations skills are an important requirement within PISA tasks; 2) Serbian students are mostly successful at basic tasks of recognizing arguments or providing arguments for the given position; they face difficulties answering the tasks which require precise formulation of relevant arguments as well as those demanding meta-cognitive skills (e.g. recognizing persuasive strategies in the given text). Their performance is particularly poor on tasks requiring the combination of information from different sources or information presented in different formats (text, tables, or graphs); 3) There is a significant gap between the requirements for argumentation skills our students usually encounter and PISA reading literacy tasks. In this paper we discuss some of the difficulties and obstacles to encouraging the development of argumentative thinking.

The Use of Online Debates in Teaching Pharmacotherapy

Given changes in the final year pharmacotherapy unit structure and calendar, along with a need to introduce assessments to encourage critical thinking, it was decided that online debates of therapeutic controversies would be beneficial. The primary objective was to assess the impact of teaching strategies on the development of argumentation skills and informal reasoning in pharmacy students. Students were provided with an introduction to argumentation followed by two formal debates, with feedback provided in between. Four debate groups were randomly selected for evaluation. In debate one, all groups posted one argument and all arguments were rationalistic and ranked as Level 3. For debate two, a total of 33 arguments were evaluated, with an overall median ranking of Level 2. Again, all debates were categorised as rationalistic. In general, students felt there was too much workload associated with the assignment. Changes in the future include providing the debates in patient scenarios to increase practical applicability.

Effects of Inquiry–based Agriscience Instruction and Subject Matter–based Instruction on Student Argumentation Skills

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of inquiry–based agriscience instruction on student argumentation skills. Argumentation is defined as the student’s ability to establish a claim, provide a rationale for steps taken, provide and justify data, recognize alternate conclusions, and provide evidence why the conclusion is correct or the best solution. Developing argumentation skills can aid in developing the next generation of scientists, and help individuals who are not scientists, distinguish evidence from bias. This quasi–experimental study investigated the effect of two teaching methods on student argumentation skills. Inquiry–based instruction was compared to the subject matter approach in 15 agriscience education classes in seven secondary schools across the United States. Univariate analysis of covariance, detected a statistically significant difference between groups on argumentation skills. Those students taught through inquiry–based instruction had higher argumentation skill than students taught through the subject matter approach.

Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and university

Learning to argue is a key academic purpose for both first and second language students. It has been claimed that computer mediated asynchronous text-based conferencing is a useful medium for developing argumentation skills (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003). This paper reports on two research studies which explore this claim. One study focused on secondary school history students’ use of conferencing to debate interpretations of historical events, the other investigated undergraduate students (in Health and Social Care) exchanging views on controversies surrounding complementary and alternative medicine. In general, research into electronic conferencing and argumentation has tended to be located within cognitive or sociocultural paradigms. In contrast, the studies reported on here used the framework and tools of systemic functional linguistics (supported by concordancing software). Interpretation of the linguistic findings was also aided by questionnaire and interview data.The analyses revealed some significant trends across both student cohorts. Overall, students were more inclined to make or support claims rather than counter or challenge them. Other significant trends included the fact that some sub-topics resulted in sustained argumentative dialogue whilst others quickly petered out. Analysis indicates that the linguistic expression of claims may partly explain this phenomenon. The authors argue that functional linguistic analysis (from text to clause level) provides a useful basis for considering the pedagogic potential of conferencing in facilitating argumentative dialogue and student learning.

Argumentation and Formal Reasoning Skillsin an Argumentation-Based Guided Inquiry Course

The development of argumentation skills and scientific reasoning abilities is examined in an introductory inquiry-based physics class. The role of competing theories teaching strategy in fostering the acquisition of argumentation and formal reasoning skills is investigated. A repeated measures MANOVA analysis shows that argumentation skills improve during instruction which includes student exercises with competing theories strategies

Entrevistando professoras: o que elas falam sobre o ensino da argumentação?

Based on a socio-interacionistic approach of language teaching, we have focused in this article on how argumentative skills have been taught in Year 5 classrooms. Initially, 15 lessons from each teacher were observed in order to identify if any argumentative work took place in classroom activities. In this instance, a low investment in the development of argumentative skills was found. We have then interviewed those teachers in order to understand the conceptions which have guided their practices. Data indicated that teachers had diffi ulties to: identify text genders which were more suitable to improve argumentative skills; recognize specifi c argumentative skills which could be developed by students and plan diversifi ed lessons towards this topic. Despite this result, they recognized that argumentation teaching is important and clearly understood that students would be capable of developing argumentative skills if more favorable teaching conditions were applied. Key words: argumentation, teaching, text production, reading, orality.

Entrevistando professoras: o que elas falam sobre o ensino da argumentação?

Based on a socio-interacionistic approach of language teaching, we have focused in this article on how argumentative skills have been taught in Year 5 classrooms. Initially, 15 lessons from each teacher were observed in order to identify if any argumentative work took place in classroom activities. In this instance, a low investment in the development of argumentative skills was found. We have then interviewed those teachers in order to understand the conceptions which have guided their practices. Data indicated that teachers had diffi ulties to: identify text genders which were more suitable to improve argumentative skills; recognize specifi c argumentative skills which could be developed by students and plan diversifi ed lessons towards this topic. Despite this result, they recognized that argumentation teaching is important and clearly understood that students would be capable of developing argumentative skills if more favorable teaching conditions were applied.Key words: argumentation, teaching, text production, reading, orality.

Developing Argument Skills Across Scientific and Social Domains

Instant-messaging software was used as a method to promote development of argumentation skills in middle schoolers. Transfer of skills across content domains was the major question investigated. Forty sixth graders engaged in electronic dialogues with peers on a controversial topic—for half a science topic (dinosaur extinction) and for half a social topic (home schooling). During 13 sessions, participants worked with a partner in arguing with a succession of pairs of classmates who held an opposing view on the topic; in addition, they engaged in some reflective activities based on transcriptions of the dialogues. Another 18 sixth graders served in a control (nonintervention) condition. Although transfer occurred in both directions, science condition participants exhibited transfer of skills to the social topic to a greater extent than did social condition participants to the science topic. Results show the transfer, and hence generality, of developing argument skills but also suggest the importance as well as feasibility of fostering argument skills within science and social domains.

Reading, annotation and production of an argumentative text written by higher education students in a blended-learning situation

Argumentation has been acknowledged as increasingly important for both academic writing and on-line communication. This study combines some of the main results and conclusions of two different, yet complementary, research studies. Here, we aim at illustrating the contribution of the use of a plat-form (SCALE) conceived for the development of argumentative skills for Higher Education students in argumentative and negotiation on-line interactions and as well as written productions (opinion articles and taking notes). For the compilation and discussion of the results, we analyzed the students' on-line argumentative diagrams and interactions, as well as their individual written productions. We also analyzed the questionnaires they answered before and after the experiment, regarding their attitudes towards Information Communication Technologies (ICT), reading, annotation and writing texts, including argumentative texts. Results suggest differences related to the type of interaction in free versus structured chats. The interactions are richer and more profound in the free chats. The annotation and the graphic representation of argumentative maps, in diagrams, seem to provide evidence of the students' learning, especially as far as the argumentative structure is concerned. Also, students' performance was more productive in the on-line environments in compari-son with the off-line situations.

Developing Argument Skills in Severely Disadvantaged Adolescent Males in a Residential Correctional Setting

We investigate whether the intervention designed by Kuhn and Udell (2003) to develop argument skills could be implemented productively among adolescent males in a residential juvenile detention facility—boys who were educationally disengaged and severely disadvantaged academically as well as socially. Compared to a control group from the same institution who did not participate, participants in the intervention exhibited superior argument skills following the intervention. In dialogic argumentation with a peer, they made more counterarguments against the opponent's claims, and they more often voiced rebuttals of the opponent's counterarguments of their own claims. Also, inindividual arguments in support of their own positions, they offered more and higher-quality reasons, relative to the control group. In addition to these cognitive skill gains, possible enhancements in cognitive engagement and mental self-management and self-control are discussed.

Arguing on the Computer: A Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer‐Supported Environment

We report a study of a class of 28 sixth graders engaged in an extended computer-supported argumentive discourse activity. Participants collaborated with a same-side peer in arguing against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue. Meta-level awareness was facilitated by conducting the dialogs via instant messaging software, which made available a transcript of the dialog that was used in additional reflective activities. In the course of dialogs on 3 successive topics, participants showed significant gains in meta-level communications about the discourse, reflecting at least implicit understanding of its goals, as well as in the strategic moves that constituted the discourse. The latter advances remained evident when the social support of a same-side partner was withdrawn.

Implications of Students' Cognitive Styles for the Development of Argumentation Skills

Increasingly, educators are becoming aware of the need to adapt their pedagogical strategies to students' learning preferences in order to foster an equitable learning environment. Decades of research vividly demonstrate that students learn in different ways. For example, research suggests that some students find learning easier if they have a visual representation or can touch and manipulate objects; others like to be given information verbally. While some students focus on details, others attend to more global characteristics (Ramirez, 1989). How individuals perceive, organize, and remember such information is a function of their cognitive style. Extant research indicates that cognitive styles influence how students learn, how teachers teach, and how teachers and students interact in the classroom (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). Recently, scholars have begun to utilize cognitive style research to assess pedagogical practices in the communication discipline. In particular, researchers have questioned whether courses in the discipline favor some cognitive styles at the expense of others (Nance & Foeman, 1993). This is an especially salient issue in the context of argumentation pedagogy. The practice of debate requires critical, logical, and linear thought (Hunt, 1995, 1997; Hunt & Simerly, 1999). It seems reasonable that emphasis on logical and analytical cognition in argumentation and debate courses privileges of processing, relating to, retaining, and communicating information (Hunt & Meyer, 2004). As a result, students whose cognitive styles mismatch those privileged in such courses may find themselves at risk of academic failure. Argumentation and critical thinking training also has become a significant focus in both general education (Halpern, 2001) and basic communication courses (Morreale, Hanna, Berko, & Gibson, 1999). Communication educators should become better informed about teaching strategies that may facilitate the academic success of students whose of learning may mismatch traditional argumentation pedagogy. To that end, this essay explores the communicative manifestations of students' cognitive styles as well as the match and mismatch of instructional strategies and students' cognitive styles in the argumentation and debate course. COGNITIVE STYLES Cognitive styles represent the characteristic in which individuals conceptually organize their environment (Goldstein & Blackman, 1978). Shade (1982) claims that cognitive styles account for individual preferences in various cognitive, perceptual, and dimensions that influence differences in information processing. Cognitive styles also are related to personality. Jonassen and Grabowski (1993) argue that the ways in which we interact with information is reflective of the in which we interact with each other through our personality (p. 173). In sum, cognitive styles are characteristic modes that can be observed in an individual's perceptual or intellectual activities; they constitute stable, self-consistent forms of adaptation, and they develop a relationship between cognitive and personal/affective spheres (Tinajero & Paramo, 1998). Although many approaches to the study of cognitive style exist (e.g., authoritarianism, dogmatism, cognitive complexity, integrative complexity), this essay is grounded in the work of Herman Witkin. Witkin (1978) examines cognitive style in relation to an individual's tendency toward more or less differentiated psychological functioning. Thought based on increased differentiation is field independent (FI), while field dependent (FD) thought is based on lower levels of differentiation (Pithers, 2002). Field independence, therefore, involves differentiated and analytical thinking, rather than diffuse and global thinking (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Chua, 1988). In the classroom, both the instructor's and students' cognitive styles contribute to the learning environment and affect learning outcomes. …