Student Argumentation Research Articles

Comparing logistic regression and extreme gradient boosting on student arguments

<p>Identifying the effectiveness level and quality of students' arguments poses a challenge for teachers. This is due to the lack of techniques that can accurately assist in identifying the effectiveness and quality of students' arguments. This research aims to develop a model that can identify effectiveness categories in students' arguments. The method employed involves the logistic regression+XGBoost algorithm combined with separate implementations of term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) and CountVectorizer. Student argument data were collected and processed using natural language processing techniques. The research results indicate that TF-IDF outperforms in identifying effectiveness classes in student arguments with an accuracy of 66.20%. The multi-output classification yielded an accuracy of 89.32% in the initial testing, which further improved to 92.34% after implementing one-hot encoding. A novel finding in this research is the superiority of TF-IDF as a technique for identifying effectiveness classes in student arguments compared to CountVectorizer. The implications of this research include the development of a model that can assist teachers in identifying the effectiveness level of students' arguments, thereby improving the quality of learning and enhancing students' argumentative competence.</p>

Diagnostic study of mathematical reasoning in novice university students

This paper presents the results of a study aimed at diagnosing how newly enrolled mathematics majors reason from a mathematical standpoint when they are required to perform inductive and deductive processes and validate or refute claims of a general nature. The theoretical framework underpinning this research comprises studies and investigations related to mathematical reasoning. The results of this diagnostic reveal that students lack mathematical reasoning skills that would allow them to justify statements of a general nature. In addition, they face difficulties in the development of deductive reasoning, are prone to generalize based on specific cases and lack skills in mathematical argumentation. On the other hand, they lack basic algebra skills such as developing square binomials and factoring. These findings highlight the need to design and implement a didactic proposal that fosters the development of reasoning and argumentation in students.

Effectiveness Evaluation of the Student Research Proposal Presentation Program at Scientific Writing Course

Higher education increasingly emphasizes the importance of developing students' academic and professional abilities, including scientific communication and presentation skills. The research proposal presentation program is a strategic initiative in responding to these needs, but challenges in its implementation still exist. Evaluate the effectiveness of student research proposal presentation programs in the Scientific Writing course at UNINDRA and identify strengths and weaknesses in the delivery of material and student argumentation structure. Evaluative research involves collecting data from the results of presentation evaluations, feedback from lecturers or other participants, and assessing the quality of presentations. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques were used, with thematic analysis techniques to identify patterns or themes in participant feedback and evaluation. The evaluation showed that the research proposal presentation program provided significant benefits for lecturers and students. However, there are challenges in the learning process due to inadequate support in CPMK and material distribution. The high lecturer-student ratio also hinders the implementation of the ideal presentation. Internal obstacles such as lack of courage and suboptimal preparation of presentation materials also affect the quality of presentations. The need for adjustments in the preparation of the curriculum and teaching methods, including aligning the CPMK with the CPL and ensuring that the plan for the presentation of research proposals is included in the RPS. It is necessary to provide adequate time and improvement of presentation equipment to improve the quality of presentation and feedback. Better integration between CPMK and CPL will create a globally competitive generation of academics and professionals. Thus, this program can be more effective in achieving higher education goals in developing students' academic and professional abilities.

The Effect of Flooding Technique Training on Anxiety in Arguing Students

The study aims to explore the influence of engineering training flooding against the level of anxiety in a student's argument. Experimental methods are used to involve students from the islamic political study program at the islamic university of raden's fatah palembang. The technique of flooding, which involves the use of imaginative techniques, has proved to be effective in overcoming fear and anxiety in cases such as phobias, obsessive, and psychotics. In this study, the technique of flooding is used to help students overcome anxiety in argument. Research indicates a significant difference between the anxiety levels before and after the training of the technique flooding, showing the effectiveness of this technique in reducing anxiety. It is hoped that this study will provide a useful recommendation for improving the effectiveness of training techniques flooding into anxiety in student argument.

Investigating lower secondary school students’ geometric argumentation structure using Toulmin model

Geometric argumentation has an important role in solving mathematical problems in geometric material, so students must have this ability. Each student has different thoughts, including when stating arguments. Each student's arguments will vary and be at different levels. This study aims to determine the levels of lower secondary school students' geometric argumentation. This research was conducted in a lower secondary school involving 20 ninth-grade students. Students participating in this study were asked to work on geometry problems related to proof. Through the proofs carried out, the argumentation structure owned by students is visible. The structures of argumentation given by the students were then analysed using Toulmin's model of argumentation. The components of the Toulmin model used consist of claim, data, warrant, and backing. The results of the analysis of the proof prepared by the students stated that some of the students have been able to reach a high level of geometric argumentation and can compile a series of proofs. But not a few of them also have difficulty compiling the proof, have difficulty providing the components of the Toulmin model, and make some mistakes. Errors made by students include symbol writing errors, calculation errors, and others.

Demonstrating consensus in argumentative settings: Co-constructions in children’s peer discussions

‘Taking part’ in conversations requires different activities from the interactants depending on the kind of conversation. This article investigates co-constructions in oral peer group discussions of elementary school children from grades 2 to 6 (7–12 years old). Although dissent is the starting point of argumentations, negotiating processes in oral argumentations are often co-constructed by two or more speakers on different levels, including consensual contexts. Co-constructions presuppose that the second speakers recognize structures and expectations based on the turn of the first speaker and that they are able to complete or expand these structures. Therefore, co-constructions can be understood as an indicator for oral skills and as a key site of ‘taking part’ in small group discussions. The article will discuss two different kinds of co-constructions (morpho-syntactical and argumentative-structural) based on 60 transcripts from a bigger corpus of 180 peer discussions. The analysis will show that these co-constructions can be understood as synchronizations of thinking and acting and to what extent they are an indicator of oral skills and play an important role in cooperative learning settings. The results are relevant in school contexts when it comes to assess oral argumentation of students. For teachers, they are helpful to elicit requirements for children’s argumentation skills and to design tasks conducive to learn to argue and develop assessment tools accordingly.

Extending science instruction beyond the CER: Use of critical questions in the argumentation of middle school science students

AbstractCritiquing arguments is important for K‐12 science students to learn but not emphasized by the predominant claim‐evidence‐reasoning (CER) argumentation model. Drawing on the work of Yu and Zenker (2020), and Dove and Nussbaum (2018), we developed a tool for supplementing CER with critical questions (CQs) from philosophy that cover most, if not all, the logical dimensions of argument critique. Six middle school science teachers designed lessons involving argumentation, including the use of CQs. We assessed the effects on student self‐efficacy for engaging in argument critique, teacher self‐efficacy for using argument pedagogy, and teachers’ perceptions of the value of CQs. Qualitative data included teacher interviews, lesson transcripts, and student work samples. Quantitative data included surveys of student self‐efficacy administered at the beginning and end of the school year. There was evidence suggesting an increase over time in students’ confidence for engaging in argument critique and teachers’ confidence with argument pedagogy. However, only four of the six teachers were confident and skilled enough to include CQs in their lessons. Those who did use CQs tended to perceive them as providing a helpful structure for critique, prompts for deeper thinking, and a tool for fostering critical classroom norms. Discussion of CQs may have benefitted students’ writing by promoting peer critique and encouragement to elaborate. Overall, CQs afford students with a framework for judging argument strength. Scientific argumentation involving CQs provides a more contemporary philosophical basis for scientific argumentation than CER or the Toulmin model as it emphasizes the critical and dialogic nature of science.

The Issue of Air Quality in Socio-Scientific Teaching: Does it Impact 11--13-years-old Students' Informal Reasoning Skills?

Various land transportations mostly use fossil fuels which produce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a challenge of how to teach the content to elementary school students with a socio-scientific issue approach to the theme of the water quality index. The method used was a pre-experiment with a one-group pretest-posttest design that involved 25 students aged 11–13 at one of the private schools in Bandung. The instrument used was questions of reasoning skills that asked students argumentation. Students’ reasoning skills are analyzed and classified based on the quality of their answers. The results showed that thematic teaching strategies with socio-scientific issues were able to improve the quality of students’ reasoning skills. Students’ answers were not only dominated by claims but also provided with data and evidence even though they were not found in large numbers. In the opinion of students, the packaging of thematic teaching through scientific issues on the theme of water quality index was able to attract their attention. This indicates that increasing reasoning skills can be improved by infusing socio-scientific issues into teaching themes. Keywords: socio-scientific issue, water quality index, reasoning skills.

Describing undergraduate students’ reasoning and use of evidence during argumentation about socioscientific issues systems

IntroductionWe conducted research in a post-secondary, large-enrollment science literacy course that asks students to apply multidisciplinary scientific evidence when providing an argument about the potential social and ecological consequences of policy solutions to socioscientific issues (SSI).MethodsCoding schemes were developed to describe students’ levels of proficiency in constructing arguments about the nature of SSI systems and were created through inductive coding of student arguments about SSI systems embedded within a structured decision-making process.ResultsThe coding schemes included student practices in 1) providing reasoning about the potential consequences of multiple solutions for an SSI, 2) linking evidence to reasoning, and 3) sources of evidence. In the highest level in the reasoning coding scheme, students used clear and traceable scientific evidence to address an assumption by specifying how (a mechanism) or by how much, an SSI solution might satisfy a desired policy objective.DiscussionThe resulting framework describes how students apply multidisciplinary scientific evidence to support their SSI reasoning, which may aid researchers and educators in exploring how students interpret and integrate scientific evidence in an SSI-context, with the ultimate goal of bolstering students’ ability to reason about evidence outside the classroom.

Arguments and group discussions: middle-school students’ initial work with mathematical arguments

This article addresses argumentation in middle-school students’ group work with conjectures in arithmetic with different epistemic states. Twenty-five episodes were analysed using G. J. Stylianides’ framework for reasoning and proving, which comprised a mathematical, psychological, and pedagogical component. The mathematical component was studied through students’ arguments. The arguments found in the study were predominantly empirical, but there are also examples of rationales and demonstrations. In addition, there were also cases displaying two different arguments. One notable finding is that the epistemic value of the conjectures is seen to affect students’ argumentation. The psychological component was seen through the characteristics of students’ discussions. Most episodes show that students agree or do not speak explicitly about how they perceive their argument, whereas in some cases, there is clear doubt or disagreement. Seeing each episode's mathematical and psychological components in tandem gave six categories of episodes, each showing potential for challenging perceptions and capitalising on doubt or disagreement, hence addressing the pedagogical component. The study provides insight into middle-school students’ initial work with argumentation and demonstrates how taking a dual perspective to students’ group work helps untangle this complex practice.

The Effect of Problem Based Learning (PBL) Learning Model on Students' Argumentation Ability on Salt Hydrolysis Material

The application of problem-based learning model teaches students how to deal with problems and find solutions by expressing opinions and providing logical justification for real problems, so it is expected to improve students' argumentation skills. This study aims to determine the effect of problem-based learning model on students' argumentation skills on salt hydolysis material. This study was carried out in the even semester of the 2022/2023 academic year at MAN 2 Kampar, class XI IPA.Pretest-posttest Non-Equivalent Control Grub Design was the experimental design for this study, which used quasi-experimental methods. The sample consisted of XI IPA1 students as the experimental class and XI IPA2 as the control class. Data collected to measure students argumentation skills through tests and observations and analyzed using t-test and coefficient of determination test in SPSS 24. In the t-test, the Sig (2-tailed) = 0.000 outcome is more modest than 0.05, and that implies H0 is dismissed and Ha is accepted. For the determination test, the value (r2) = 0.284 is obtained, it can be concluded that the problem-based learning model affects students argumentation skills on salt hydrolysis material by 28.4%.

Learning to measure the area of circles

ABSTRACT The study of the area of circles is an important component of mathematics education for students of all ages; however, evidence suggests that many middle school students struggle to interpret and apply the area formula of a circle. In this article, I report the findings of a classroom design study conducted to investigate the collective establishment and justification for the area formula of a circle. An instructional sequence comprising paper-based decomposition and recomposition measurement tasks situated on a grid was implemented in a Year 8 classroom (n = 18) and the collective mathematical practices that emerged from an analysis of the argumentation of students during whole-class discussion were documented. The findings extend the existing literature by illustrating how decomposition/recomposition tasks can be leveraged in a classroom context by grounding students’ reasoning in measurement strategies and opportunities to examine alternative strategies and justifications through whole-class discussions.

Development of Differentiate Student Worksheets: an Efforts to Improve Student Argumentation Ability

Online learning experiences have been associated with reduced learning outcomes and limited student engagement in argumentation. To address this issue, the focus on teaching materials becomes crucial, especially in promoting differentiated learning to accommodate pandemic-induced learning losses. A prime candidate for enhancing argumentation skills is the study of quadrilaterals within mathematics. Mastering the quadrilateral concept and its argumentative structure is pivotal for students. Hence, the creation of student worksheets employing differentiated learning principles is imperative. This research aims to develop valid, practical, and effective quadrilateral worksheets with a focus on adversity quotient differentiation. The ADDIE model guides the development process through Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation stages. Rigorous evaluation, including expert validation (83.8% very valid), field trials (91% very practical), and N-Gain score analysis (0.73, indicating effectiveness), underscores the quality of the developed worksheets. In conclusion, the adversity quotient differentiated quadrilateral worksheets has been successfully crafted to enhance students' argumentation skills. It is deemed valid, practical, and effective in improving learning outcomes. This initiative holds potential for addressing the challenges posed by online learning and contributes to students' academic development.

Examination of the Epistemic Status of Propositions Incorporated within Arguments of Undergraduate Chemistry Students

Examination of the Epistemic Status of Propositions Incorporated within Arguments of Undergraduate Chemistry Students

The Structure Of Algebraic Argumentation Of High School Students With The Toulmin Model

Mathematical argumentation is an important skill that must be owned in the 21st century. The purpose of the research is to analyze the structure of high school students' algebraic argumentation using the Toulmin model which consists of claim, data, warrant, and backing. This study involved 35 students in the odd semester of the 2022/2023 academic year at Muhammadiyah 1 Palembang High School. The students were asked to provide algebraic argumentation in mathematical proofs related to the quadratic function theorem. The algebraic argumentation was then analyzed using the Toulmin model. The results showed that 20% of students' mathematical argumentation skills were at level 5; 57.14% of students' mathematical argumentation skills were at level 4; 20% of students' mathematical argumentation skills were at level 3; 2.86% of students' mathematical argumentation skills were at level 2; and no students were at level 1.

Comparison of Effectiveness of Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, and Random Forest Algorithms in Predicting Student Arguments

Currently, in the process of assessing and giving feedback on students' argumentative writing, educators have to spend a considerable amount of time reading and analyzing each essay individually. This can be a complicated and time-consuming process, especially if the number of students to be assessed is quite large. The problem of this research is to find the most effective algorithm in providing accurate and reliable predictions in the context of evaluation and feedback of students' argumentation. This study compares three algorithms (logistic regression, Naive Bayes, and Random Forest) to predict student argumentation using essays from grades 6-12. Logistic regression performed best with 94.34% accuracy, followed by random forest with 91.98% accuracy, and Naive Bayes with 88.93% accuracy. The study optimized preprocessing and selected algorithms for an automated guidance model. It is the first stage of a three-part study for developing automated guidance models. Data came from Kaggle, and the study aims to improve the accuracy of automated guidance models for student argumentation.

Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Knowledge Resources for Blending Arguments and Representations in Science

ABSTRACT This study investigates how preservice elementary teachers (PSTs) engage and reflect on two science disciplinary practices: engaging with representations and engaging in evidence-based arguments. In the context of elementary science, teachers blend multiple practices across curricular topics and instruction. However, studies of teachers’ use of various practices often examine them independently. Contrastingly, here we examine the blending of these two practices with a focus on PSTs’ myriad ways of sensemaking about these practices, referred to as knowledge resources. Data involve audio recordings of PSTs discussing arguments and representations while engaged in small group activities centered on carefully designed teaching cases where the PSTs were tasked to imagine that they are the teacher in an elementary classroom. Analyses reveal that the PSTs used a variety of knowledge resources for analyzing existing representations, generating new representations, and evaluating and generating both existing and new arguments. We also found that PSTs’ knowledge resources about arguments and representations were brought together in two ways: generating arguments based on given representations to enhance their understanding and generating representations in response to student arguments to enhance student understanding. These findings are important for teacher education, how PSTs are taught to engage with these practices, and how they conceptualize different instructional strategies for supporting elementary students’ understanding and use of these practices.

Use of E-Modules Based on Socio-Scientific Issues in Efforts to Improve Argumentation and Decision-Making Skills of High School Students

The use of e-modules based on socio-scientific issues can be used as a way to provide argumentation and decision-making skills. This study aims to determine the use of e-modules based on socio-scientific issues in improving the argumentation and decision-making skills of high school students. This study used a quasi-experimental method. The research design used was the non-equivalent control group design. The sample in this study was class X students consisting of 132 people who were determined by purposive sampling technique. The research was conducted on two classes, namely the experimental class (learning using e-modules based on socio-scientific issues) and the control class (learning using modules not based on socio-scientific issues). The results showed that there was a significant difference in the mean between the experimental class and the control class in argumentation skills. The Mann-Whitney test on the value of argumentation skills shows a number (2-tailed = 0.000) < α (0.05) which means that there is a difference in the effectiveness of using socio-scientific issue-based e-modules with ordinary modules to improve students' argumentation skills. Then the results of the study showed that there was a significant difference in the average between the experimental class and the control class in student decision-making, shows that the Mann-Whitney test score on the value of argumentation skills shows the number (2-tailed = 0.000) < α (0.05) which means that there is a difference in the effectiveness of using socio-scientific issue-based e-modules with regular modules to improve student decision making. As for the criteria for the N-Gain score, the use of e-modules based on socio-scientific issues to improve students' argumentation skills is included in the moderate category (N-gain = 0.42), and the use of e-modules based on socio-scientific issues to improve student decision making is included in the medium category (N-gain = 0.56).

Exploring new depths: Applying machine learning for the analysis of student argumentation in chemistry

AbstractConstructing arguments is essential in science subjects like chemistry. For example, students in organic chemistry should learn to argue about the plausibility of competing chemical reactions by including various sources of evidence and justifying the derived information with reasoning. While doing so, students face significant challenges in coherently structuring their arguments and integrating chemical concepts. For this reason, a reliable assessment of students' argumentation is critical. However, as arguments are usually presented in open‐ended tasks, scoring assessments manually is resource‐consuming and conceptually difficult. To augment human diagnostic capabilities, artificial intelligence techniques such as machine learning or natural language processing offer novel possibilities for an in‐depth analysis of students' argumentation. In this study, we extensively evaluated students' written arguments about the plausibility of competing chemical reactions based on a methodological approach called computational grounded theory. By using an unsupervised clustering technique, we sought to evaluate students' argumentation patterns in detail, providing new insights into the modes of reasoning and levels of granularity applied in students' written accounts. Based on this analysis, we developed a holistic 20‐category rubric by combining the data‐driven clusters with a theory‐driven framework to automate the analysis of the identified argumentation patterns. Pre‐trained large language models in conjunction with deep neural networks provided almost perfect machine‐human score agreement and well‐interpretable results, which underpins the potential of the applied state‐of‐the‐art deep learning techniques in analyzing students' argument complexity. The findings demonstrate an approach to combining human and computer‐based analysis in uncovering written argumentation.

Mathematics teacher argumentation in a didactic perspective

The teacher’s argumentation is considered essential to promote the student’s mathematical education; the teacher’s argumentation is linked to the teacher’s didactic-mathematical knowledge and the achievement of instructional objectives. In this sense, a pragmatic proposal is required that links the teacher’s didactic-mathematical knowledge with argumentation. Toulmin’s (2007) model makes it possible to study the structure of teacher or student argumentation; in contrast, pragma-dialectic considers that in the face of a difference of opinion, the parties involved try to persuade their counterpart while observing argumentative discourse standards. In the context of an argumentative class, both argumentation models do not consider the particularities of the argumentation of a didactic nature that the teacher uses. This document presents a proposal for argumentation suited to mathematics education, based on a mapping of literature and a model of the teacher’s knowledge, contrasted in an actual class. The analysis and discussion of data let us conclude that a teacher’s argumentation is characterized by epistemic, cognitive, interactional, emotional, and communicative features that reaffirm not only the complexity of educational practices but also the teacher’s argumentation for educational purposes and the adequacy of the proposed definition.