Argumentation Skills Research Articles

Investigating the use of chatGPT as a tool for enhancing critical thinking and argumentation skills in international relations debates among undergraduate students

This study investigated the effectiveness of using ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM), to enhance critical thinking and argumentation skills among undergraduate students studying international relations in a developing nation context. A total of 95 participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 48) and a control group (n = 47). The experimental group engaged in debate sessions using ChatGPT, while the control group participated in traditional debate sessions. Pre-test and post-test assessments were conducted to measure the participants’ critical thinking and argumentation skills. The results revealed that the use of ChatGPT significantly improved students' understanding of complex concepts, critical thinking, and argumentation skills compared to traditional debate methods. The findings suggest that integrating LLMs into existing educational curricula may be an effective strategy for enhancing students’ critical thinking and argumentation skills in resource-constrained settings. However, the challenges and limitations associated with the use of LLMs in developing nations should be carefully considered. The study contributes to the growing body of research on the application of AI-powered tools in education and informs the development of evidence-based practices and policies for integrating LLMs into educational curricula.

Enhancing the scientific argumentation skills of prospective chemistry teacher using integrated chemical literacy strategy

Enhancing the scientific argumentation skills of prospective chemistry teacher using integrated chemical literacy strategy

Promoting secondary school students scientific argumentation skills through dialogic practical work

ABSTRACT Background Recipe-based practical work had a negligible effect on developing students’ scientific argumentation skills. Studies suggest that applying dialogic teaching in practical investigations may help students develop meaningful explanations based on evidence. Purpose This study examined how dialogic practical work can enhance students’ scientific argumentation skills. Design and Method This study used a quantitative research design. The study participants were 46 secondary school students in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. The sources of data were the video recordings of the dialogic practical work sessions. The students’ change in scientific argumentation skills was scored using the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom observation protocol. This data was analyzed using a repeated measures Friedman test. Results The result showed that dialogic practical work in physics laboratories significantly improved secondary school students’ scientific argumentation skills over eight weeks. However, these students who participated in dialogic-practical work still faced difficulties in providing quality evidence to challenge each other’s ideas. Discussion The finding concluded that dialogic practical work is useful in improving students’ ability for scientific argumentation. Given the growing significance of more social and student-centered strategies, this study might develop secondary school teachers’ awareness of dialogic practical work in laboratories to enhance students’ scientific argumentation skills.

Nurturing Argumentation Skills to Solve Complex Problems through Structured Scaffolding-Guided Inquiry (SSGI)

This study aims to develop a structured scaffolding-guided inquiry (SSGI) learning model that is oriented toward nurturing argumentation skills to solve complex problems. Test the effectiveness of the SSGI model in improving students' argumentation skills to solve complex problems. This research is development research that refers to Dick and Carey. Test the effectiveness of the SSGI learning model in a quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test group design. Argumentation skills to solve complex problems data were collected using an essay test. The research sample used Physics Education students in the 4th semester (N = 30). The significance of the difference in pre-test and post-test scores was analyzed using the t-test. The impact of the SSGI is analyzed using effect size. The result of this study indicates that the SSGI enhances students' argumentation skills to solve complex problems. The increase in students' argumentation skills to solve complex problems was 7% in the high category, 57% in the medium category, and 36% in the low category. The effect size coefficient of the SSGI is 0.78 in the medium category. The SSGI syntax that contributes the most to growing argumentation skills to solve complex problems is the reasoning syntax. Then the next sequence is syntax exploration, closure, and orientation.

Analysing the evolution of argumentation quality among pre-service biology teachers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has become one of the most controversial issues in recent years. The pandemic’s impact on argumentation skills, crucial for science teachers, needs exploration to understand its effects on how they evaluate evidence and engage in discussions. This study investigated how biology pre-service teachers’ (PSTs) argumentation quality changed over the pandemic’s first two months of social distancing and quarantine. Using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) was employed to evaluate the arguments. Initially, nearly half of the participants demonstrated low-level arguments. However, during the second round of interviews, a decrease in Level 1 and 2 arguments and an increase in Level 3 arguments were observed. The observed improvements in argumentation quality, particularly in the use of counterclaims, warrants, and rebuttals, underscore the role of increased familiarity with the issue and exposure to diverse information sources. These findings suggest that real-life contexts, such as the pandemic, offer opportunities for PSTs to develop more sophisticated argumentation skills when exposed to multiple perspectives and ongoing engagement with the topic. Understanding these changes can inform teaching strategies and teacher training programmes, especially during global crises. Future research could examine argumentation quality related to issues such as vaccination and COVID-19 variants.

Investigating students’ arguments with real-life functional situations throughout a sequence of collaborative activities

Recent years have seen increasing interest in providing students with opportunities for developing important argumentation skills in the mathematics classroom. Social interactions with peers to critique alternative ideas, justify arguments, and build consensus, have been found to promote deep thinking and meaningful development of concepts. In this study we explored 9<sup>th</sup>-grade students’ interactions during a sequence of specifically designed argumentation tasks on real-life functional situations to investigate the appropriateness of their arguments. Data were collected from the students’ written task responses, student reflections, small-group observations, individual interviews with the group members, and teacher interviews. Analysis of the level of appropriateness of the students’ individual and group written responses in each activity focused on three aspects: identifying variables, forming relations between them, and noticing contextual features of the real-life situation. We found evidence of students grappling with selecting two suitable variables and with conceptualizing the nature of their relation. It also appeared that aspects of the students’ social interactions played a role in students ignoring correct arguments and accepting incorrect arguments. We discuss implications for small-group argumentation and suggest avenues for future research.

Empowering minds: An e-book blending contextual teaching learning with plant tissue exploration to boost argumentation and cognitive skills

This research was motivated by obstacles in implementing biology learning which resulted in the lack of training in argumentation skills and low cognitive learning outcomes. The current teaching materials does not yet support these skills optimally. The aim of this research is to develop an e-book blending contextual teaching learning that is feasible, practical and effective to boost high school student’s argumentation and cognitive skills. A research and development method was used using the ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) development model. The subjects of this research were 34 high school students in Sleman, Yogyakarta in limited trials and 62 students in field trials. The type of research used in the field test was quasi-experimental with a pretest-post-test control group design. Class XI MIPA 1 was used as the control class and class XII MIPA 2 as the experimental class. Data collection instruments used included product assessment questionnaires by experts, biology teachers and students, argumentation skills and cognitive learning outcomes test instruments. Data analysis used the paired sample t-test, independent sample t-test and n-gain score test. The research results show that e-books is suitable for use in learning according to material experts and media experts, e-books is practical for use in learning according to teacher and student assessments, and e-books is effective for improving students' argumentation skills and learning outcomes. The conclusion in this research is that e-books blending contextual teaching and learning are feasible, practical and effective to use to boost students' argumentation and cognitive skills.

Development of Socioscientific-Issue-Based Electronic Modules on Virus Material to Increase Interest and Argumentation Skills

This study aims to produce an electronic module based on socioscientific issues that is feasible to improve students' interest and argumentation skills. This research is development research with the ADDIE method (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation). The product to be developed is an electronic module based on Socioscientific Issues on virus material. Data collection techniques used are interviews, observations, learning interest questionnaires. The resulting product is then validated by material experts and media experts, and a limited trial is carried out. Based on the results of the development of an electronic module based on socioscientific issues, it is concluded that the electronic module is feasible to be used for biology learning in terms of the assessment of material experts with an average value of 3.11 (very feasible) and the assessment of media experts with an average value of 3.77 (very feasible). And it is effective for increasing students' interest in learning as seen from the n-gains value of 0.55 with a moderate category and to improve students' argumentation skills with an n-gains value of 0.4 with a moderate category.

The effect of argument-driven inquiry to pre-service biology teachers’ argumentation skills and metacognitive awareness in Mendelian genetics

In recent years, pre-service teacher education programs have recognized the importance of equipping future educators with the necessary skills such as argumentation skills and metacognitive awareness. However, the extent to these skills in ore-service biology teachers remains relatively unexplored. This study aimed to explore the effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service biology teachers’ argumentation skills and metacognitive awareness. This study also investigated the correlation between argumentation skills and metacognitive awareness in pre-service biology teachers. This research was conducted as quasi experiment using nonrandomized control group pretest–post-test design with two classes. One class as experiment group (N=44) which participated in series of activities in laboratory work using argument-driven inquiry, and control group (N=44) which participated in the regular laboratory activities. The laboratory work focused on the topic of mendelian genetic. This research was conducted on the second year of pre-service biology teachers in the Department of Biology Education. Data were generated by administrating pre-test and post-test on argumentation skill using open-ended question and metacognitive awareness using Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Result showed a significant difference between experimental group and control group in argumentation skills (p value= .016) as well as in metacognitive awareness (p value = .005). However, the correlation between argumentation skills and metacognitive awareness were relatively low (r= -.119). This research findings can be used as suggestions for policy makers and educational institute to integrate argumentation skills and metacognitive awareness in designed for professional development program in teacher training program.

Does the Creative Problem-Solving Model Improve Students' Argumentation Skills?

Argumentation skills are one of the skills of the 21st century. The research aims to analyze students' achievement of argumentation skills using the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model on biodiversity material. Qualitative research with descriptive methods. The research subjects were class X students in one of the Bandung City schools. The purposive sampling technique used 30 students. The argumentation skills question instrument is based on Toulmin's Argumentation Pattern which has level 1-5 criteria containing 12 essay questions. The research results showed that the students' strongest argumentation skills were at level 3 at 63.3 Percent with sufficient criteria and the weakest at level 1 and level 5 with very weak criteria. The criteria for level 1 are very weak, level 2 is weak, level 3 is sufficient, level 4 is strong, and level 5 is very strong. It is important for other education experts to acquire argumentation skills in the learning process.

ASSEMBLER EDU E-MODULES: IMPROVING ARGUMENTATION SKILLS, PERSEVERANCE, AND CURIOSITY IN PHYSICS LEARNING

This study examined the impact of Assembler Edu-based e-modules on enhancing students' argumentation skills, perseverance, and curiosity in high school physics learning. Employing a quantitative ex-post facto design, the research utilized a 4-point Likert scale questionnaire to gather data. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods, including simple linear regression, were used for analysis. The findings reveal that using Assembler Edu-based e-modules significantly positively affected students' argumentation skills, with a 42.2% influence. Moreover, student responses indicated a 47.6% improvement in perseverance, while curiosity in learning renewable energy topics increased by 47.4%. These results highlight the considerable potential of integrating digital tools like Assembler Edu into the learning environment. This study introduces an innovative approach to physics education by incorporating interactive e-modules based on the Assembler Edu platform. Unlike traditional learning materials, these e-modules foster a more dynamic and engaging learning experience, enhancing students' critical thinking, perseverance, and curiosity. The research adds a fresh dimension to the existing literature by demonstrating how digital technology in science education can significantly improve core skills necessary for 21st-century learners. The study's implications suggest that integrating Assembler Edu-based e-modules into the school curriculum can enrich students' learning experiences, promote a deeper understanding of complex topics like renewable energy, and cultivate essential skills such as argumentation and perseverance, which are vital for success in both academic and real-world contexts.

Argumentation and Knowledge Construction in Higher Education: A Vygotskian Perspective

Empirical research indicates that the utilization of argumentation as an educational strategy fosters the acquisition of argumentation skills and disciplinary knowledge. Furthermore, there is evidence to show that argumentation skills development mediates the effect of oral argumentation on disciplinary knowledge. However, studies have also shown that argumentation is scarce in higher education and that although lecturers see argumentation as a relevant pedagogical goal, they think that students need to first acquire knowledge in order to develop argumentation skills. Therefore, a crucial pedagogical resource to promote scientific knowledge in higher education is being overlooked. This paper is aimed at shedding light onto argumentation as a key practice in higher education teaching, disputing the idea that to argue, students first need to acquire knowledge. We elaborate further on Vygotsky’s notion of scientific concepts, highlighting their dialectic structure, which accounts for the epistemic potential of argumentation. This paper extends an invitation to higher education lecturers to prompt argumentation in classrooms as a form of disciplinary learning. Limitations and implications are discussed throughout the paper

What Socrates Learned From Parmenides. Part 2. Hypothesis, Antilogy, and Philosophical Self-Defense in the Phaedo

My first study identified the cognitive abilities and argumentative skills developed by the gymnasia presented in Plato’s Parmenides. Since the correspondence with the intellectual virtues Socrates displays in other dialogues is too remarkable to be a coincidence, I concluded that Socrates must have trained with Parmenides’ eightfold routine in his youth. My second study supports this conclusion by drawing attention to textual evidence found in the Phaedo. The autobiographical account Socrates shares in that dialogue indicates how the gymnasia impacted his intellectual development, mostly through the action of hypothesizing. This strategic move used by the Eleatics transformed the originally sectarian way So- crates related to Forms and enabled him to protect his theory from attacks in a secure yet non-dogmatic way.

Exploring students' computer‐supported collaborative argumentation with socio‐scientific issues

AbstractBackgroundThis study examined the effect of computer‐supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) on secondary school students' understanding of socio‐scientific issues (SSI). Engaging students in collaborative argumentation is known to help with deepening their understanding of SSI.MethodsIn this study, a mixed‐method design is used to investigate 84 students' collaborative argumentation processes and outcomes. The statistical analysis, epistemic network analysis and qualitative uptake analysis results showed that CSCA was effective in supporting secondary school students' evidence‐based argumentation skills on SSI.Findings and ConclusionSeveral cases were presented to show how students engaged in CSCA to explore meaningful learning opportunities and how CSCA helped students' learning on SSI.ImplicationsThe findings provided insights for future innovative teaching and learning SSI in authentic classroom settings.

Evolving Assessment in Medical Education: Exploring the Role of Open-Book Examinations.

The landscape of medical education has witnessed significant transformations over the past decades, particularly with the advent of active teaching methodologies. However, despite these advancements, the traditional theoretical assessment methods have remained largely unchanged. This lack of evolution in assessment systems poses a challenge as it is crucial for assessment methods to evolve in tandem with teaching approaches to ensure a comprehensive and effective learning process in medical education. This paper reviews the integration and effectiveness of open-book examinations (OBEs) in medical education, reflecting their growing significance. An integrative review of the literature was conducted, drawing from a range of relevant publications over the last decade, sourced from databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC. The inclusion criteria focused on full-text articles in English, with search terms including "medicine," "assessment," "open book examination," "open book exam," and "open book assessment," combined using Boolean operators. Thirteen publications were selected and critically appraised using The Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. The analysis identified three primary thematic categories: "Teaching Strategy for Pandemic and Challenging Conditions," "Tool of Learning & Educational Impact", and "Operational Challenges & Future Directions". These themes were explored to understand the role and impact of open-book examinations in medical education. The findings indicate that open-book examinations are a crucial component in the evolving landscape of medical education. While certain reservations remain, open-book examinations have shown significant potential in fostering critical thinking, argumentation skills, and lifelong learning among medical students. They reflect the ongoing evolution of knowledge in the medical field and contribute to the development of professionals' adept at navigating and applying complex information. Further research is recommended to solidify these findings and expand the understanding of open-book examinations in medical education.

A Brief Analysis of Good Argumentation

The book "Good Reasoning: Logical Training to Counter Fallacies" provides us with authoritative standards and paradigms for argumentation, as well as basic principles for the application of logical thinking, and deeply analyzes the difference between good argumentation and fallacies. This book aims to guide us in building good argumentative skills, enhancing our personal thinking and action skills, and enabling us to find a more advantageous position in both social and professional settings. In legal negotiations, good argumentation plays a crucial role.

Example-based learning in heuristic domains: can using relevant content knowledge support the effective allocation of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load?

Worked examples support initial skill acquisition. They often show skill application on content knowledge from another, "exemplifying" domain (e.g., argumentation skills have to be applied to some contents). Although learners' focus should remain on the skill, learners need to understand the content knowledge to benefit from worked examples. Previous studies relied on exemplifying domains that are familiar and contain simple topics, to keep learners' focus on skill acquisition. We examined whether using a relevant exemplifying domain would allow learners to acquire both skills and content knowledge simultaneously, or whether relevant content distracts from the main learning goal of skill acquisition. In a training study with 142 psychology students, we used example-based learning materials with an exemplifying domain that was either relevant or irrelevant for participants' course outcomes. We assessed cognitive load, declarative knowledge about skills and course-related content knowledge, and argumentation quality. Incorporating relevant content knowledge in worked examples did not reduce learning outcomes compared to a condition using an irrelevant exemplifying domain. Contrary to previous research, the results suggest that worked examples with a relevant exemplifying domain could possibly be an efficient teaching method for fostering skills and content knowledge simultaneously.

Science Literacy Support for Improving Students Argumentation Skills

This study explores the impact of science literacy on improving students' argumentation skills at SMA Negeri 21 Surabaya during the 2023/2024 academic year, within the context of the "Merdeka Belajar" initiative and 21st-century competencies. This quantitative correlational research involved 60 students from classes XI-2 and XI-10, selected using purposive sampling techniques. Based on Toulmin's argument model and the PISA science literacy framework, data was collected through science literacy tests and argumentation skill assessments. Data analysis using Minitab 18 revealed a significant positive correlation between science literacy and argumentation skills, with p < 0.05 and correlation coefficients of 0.710 for class XI-2 and 0.926 for class XI-10. These findings support the hypothesis that enhancing science literacy can improve students' argumentation skills. This study highlights the importance of integrating argumentation skills into science education to enhance science literacy and recommends developing a curriculum that supports argumentation practices to improve students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

VAI TRÒ CỦA TƯ DUY PHẢN BIỆN TRONG GIÁO DỤC BẬC TRUNG HỌC

Critical thinking skills are broadly defined as the ability to analyse, evaluate, and construct logical arguments. It can therefore be affirmed that critical thinking is crucial for developing students’ autonomy, creativity, and problemsolving skills. Integrating critical thinking into the curriculum encourages students to form personal viewpoints, engage in indepth discussions, and tackle problems from various perspectives. Effective integration methods include the use of open-ended questions, promoting argumentative skills, and supporting multidimensional learning. Despite challenges such as training adequately competent teachers or the compatibility of traditional teaching methods, the potential opportunities to enhance the quality of education through the integration of critical thinking into the curriculum are highly significant. Critical thinking not only helps students achieve their best potential in learning but also prepares them to face the complexities of modern life. Keywords: Critical thinking; secondary education; teaching methods; problem-solving skills; curriculum integration.

Diagnostic and Feedback Behavior of German Pre-Service Teachers Regarding Argumentative Pupils’ Texts in Geography Education

The study sheds light on the importance of diagnostic and feedback skills regarding argumentative pupils’ texts for (prospective) teachers and the current state of research in this area. The importance of argumentation in geography education is undisputed, as geographical problems often require multi-layered solutions that can be analyzed, assessed and reflected upon by teachers and pupils through argumentation skills. Nevertheless, research findings reveal that both teachers and pupils often have limited argumentation skills, which poses a challenge for both. The present study investigates the attitudes and practices of prospective geography teachers regarding the diagnosis of and feedback on pupils’ argumentative texts. Using a qualitative research design, twenty German pre-service teachers of geography were interviewed about their diagnostic and feedback experiences and asked to analyze and provide feedback on an argumentative pupil text. The results were evaluated using qualitative content analysis. In addition, a theoretical model for diagnosis was developed, which was used to analyze the pre-service teachers’ diagnostic behavior. The criteria used by the pre-service teachers to evaluate the argumentative pupils’ text were examined. The results show that the diagnosis often lacks the exploration of causes and the deduction of consequences, and that only a few subject-specific criteria were taken into account in the text assessment. In addition, the feedback was generally more positive than the diagnosis itself. The results offer insights into the design of diagnostic and feedback processes in geography education and provide impulses for (higher) education teaching and future research.