No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Influence of Playing a for or Against a Controversial Position on Elementary Students’ Ability to Construct Cogent Arguments
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of requiring elementary students to participate in a detective role-playing game, within which students had to be for or against a controversial issue. Three intact sixth grade classes (N = 94) participated in this study. One class of students was asked to search for supporting evidence for one side of an online ethics dilemma and to create convincing arguments (pro), while another searched for opposing evidence (con). The third other class searched for both supporting and opposing evidence (balanced). A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance shows that the balanced role-play strategy had a notable positive impact on the students’ ability to construct cogent arguments.
... Although the use of TAP as an analytical tool for argument has been subjected to various criticisms (Voss & Van Dyke, 2001), it remains an effective way to structure an argument or design an argument scaffold. Lin, Chiu, Hsu, and Wang (2015) noted that TAP offers a complete structure to construct a high-quality argument by fully and accurately connecting various components to the issue discussed. This structure is flexible and field-invariant and thus may be applied to different fields (e.g., law, science, politics, etc.) (Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000;Lin et al., 2015). ...
... Lin, Chiu, Hsu, and Wang (2015) noted that TAP offers a complete structure to construct a high-quality argument by fully and accurately connecting various components to the issue discussed. This structure is flexible and field-invariant and thus may be applied to different fields (e.g., law, science, politics, etc.) (Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000;Lin et al., 2015). Moreover, Gott and Duggan (2007) suggested that TAP can be used as a structure to help students think about how to create an argument by depicting the relationship between argument components. ...
... Rotating the scripted roles could facilitate learning by helping students focus on task performance (Noroozi, Weinberger, Biemans, Mulder, & Chizari, 2012). Our previous study also found that playing a balanced role and searching for both supporting and opposing evidence can significantly improve related skills (Lin et al., 2015). For example, rotating the roles of speaker and questioner during a period of cross-questioning can be helpful when formulating an explanation. ...
Constructing scientific explanations is necessary for students to engage in scientific inquiry. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of using a structured argumentation scaffold to enhance skill in constructing scientific explanations in the process of scientific inquiry. The proposed approach is designed to scaffold the following aspects of argumentation: the argumentation process, the explanation structuring, explanation construction, and explanation evaluation. A quasi-experiment was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the structured argumentation scaffold in developing skill in constructing scientific explanations and engaging in electronic dialogues. A web-based collaborative synchronous inquiry system, ASIS (Argumentative Scientific Inquiry System), was utilized to support students as they worked in groups to carry out inquiry tasks. Two intact sixth grade classes (n = 50) participated in the study. The data show that the ASIS with the structured argumentation scaffold helped students significantly improve their skills in constructing scientific explanations, make more dialogue moves for explanation and query, and use more of all four argument components. In addition, the use of warrants, one of the components of an argument, was found to be a critical variable in predicting students' competence with regard to constructing scientific explanations. The results provide references for further research and system development with regard to facilitating students' construction of scientific argumentation and explanations.
... Unexpectedly, there was no significant difference in the capacity of the two groups to create claims. The more likely explanation rests in the supposition that claims are fundamental kinds of arguments that may be easier to perform than other parts of an argument, such as reasoning and rebuttal (Berland & Reiser, 2009;Lin et al., 2015;Lizotte et al., 2004;Radinsky et al., 2008). Constructing claims is comparable to that of everyday "arguing" speech, and is thought to be an essential element of practical implications (Kuhn & Udell, 2007;Lin et al., 2015). ...
... The more likely explanation rests in the supposition that claims are fundamental kinds of arguments that may be easier to perform than other parts of an argument, such as reasoning and rebuttal (Berland & Reiser, 2009;Lin et al., 2015;Lizotte et al., 2004;Radinsky et al., 2008). Constructing claims is comparable to that of everyday "arguing" speech, and is thought to be an essential element of practical implications (Kuhn & Udell, 2007;Lin et al., 2015). Nonetheless, prompt scaffolding might provide crucial help in the construction of advanced science explanations/arguments while also successfully improving the explanation abilities of students. ...
Argumentation scaffolding can be used to enhance the formulation of
logical arguments as well as the performance of such arguments. This
study presents a web-based synchronized scientific argumentation
environment integrated with prompt scaffolding to support simulationbased physics learning for elementary school students. To investigate
the effects of prompt argumentation scaffolding, two sixth-grade
classes totaling fifty-five students worked in small groups to complete a
simulation-based physics learning activity regarding the principle of
leverage. One class was allocated to an experimental group that
received prompt argumentation scaffolding, whereas the other class
was assigned to be the control group not receiving prompts. Learning
achievements such as science conceptual understanding and scientific
explanation skills were examined, and lag sequential analysis (LSA) was
used to compare the argumentative behavioral patterns of the two
groups. The results showed that the students in the experimental group
outperformed those in the control group in terms of their capacity to
produce scientific explanations, though no significant difference in their
understanding of physical concepts. Furthermore, the LSA results
revealed that the experimental group demonstrated more coherent,
evidence-based arguments and conscious reasoning, whereas the
control group displayed more of a conversational tone and was
unstructured in its debates with others
... The TAP offers a complete structure to build high-quality arguments by fully and accurately linking various components to the issues discussed. This structure is flexible and thus can be applied to various fields (for example, law, science, politics, etc.) [4], [37]. In addition, research by [38] shows that TAP can be used as a structure to help students think about how to make arguments by describing the relationships between the components of the argument. ...
... On the other end of the continuum within the argumentation literature are more emergent "my-side" or "one-sided" arguments; we refer to historical arguments that focus on one point of view as single-perspective arguments. Such arguments have characteristics including selecting evidence to support preconceived notions rather than engaging in analysis, omitting alternative perspectives and/or failing to consider the weakness(es) and conditions underlying one's position (Felton & Herko, 2004;Felton, Crowell, & Liu, 2015;Lin, Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2015;Nickerson, 1998). What is implied in these categorizations is that argumentation in constructed responses range by degree of reasoning, reasoning which is evidenced by the explicit inclusion (and analysis and weighing) of multiple perspectives, the relative strengths and weaknesses of considered perspectives and evidence supporting one's position. ...
This study examines whether and how five novice history teachers incorporated writing into their instruction. We analyzed observations, student writing, teacher feedback and interviews, and classroom artifacts from teachers’ preservice program experiences and first 2 years of teaching. All novices included writing in their instruction; however; we find that their use of writing required different types of historical work and arguments. We also found that key aspects of classroom instruction leading up to writing shaped students’ argument writing. The process leading up to writing—including task, prompt, related activities, and how they’re situated in a unit—was a major factor in shaping the purpose of the assignment, the type of argument involved, and the historical work required to complete it. This article builds the case for explicit attention to the historical work and type of argument embedded in assignments, instruction, and student work in order to strengthen history teacher education and research in history classrooms.
This research investigated ways of encouraging students to consider more counterarguments when writing argumentative texts. One hundred eighty-four undergraduates wrote essays on TV violence. In Experiment 1, students given specific goals generated more counterarguments/rebuttals than controls. In Experiment 2, some participants were provided with a text outlining arguments/counterarguments; some were also asked to write a persuasive letter. Prior attitudes toward the topic were also measured. Persuasion instructions negatively affected and text (without persuasion instructions) positively affected counterargumentation and the overall quality of arguments. Text was only effective, however, for students with less extreme prior attitudes. The danger of using persuasion goals, and the advantages of using more specific goals (with text), are discussed.
We designed Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) debate projects to take advantage of internet resources and promote student understanding of science. Design decisions were guided by the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration instructional framework. We report on design studies that test and elaborate on our instructional framework. Our learning studies assess the arguments students construct using the Knowledge Integration Environment debate project about light propagation and, explore the relationship between students' views of the nature of science and argument construction. We examine how students use evidence, determine when they add further ideas and claims and measure progress in understanding light propagation. To a modeate degree, students' views of the nature of science align with the quality of the arguments.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. This article investigated the influence of scaffolding on 331 seventh-grade students' writing of scientific explanations during an 8-week, project-based chemistry unit in which the construction of scientific explanations is a key learning goal. The unit makes an instructional model for explanation explicit to students through a focal lesson and reinforces that model through subsequent written support for each investigation. Students received 1 of 2 treatments in terms of the type of written support: continuous, involving detailed support for every investigation, or faded, involving less support over time. The analyses showed significant learning gains for students for all components of scientific explanation (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning). However, on posttest items lacking scaffolds, the faded group gave stronger explanations in terms of their reasoning compared to the continuous group. Fading written scaffolds better equipped students to write explanations when they were not provided with support.
Drawing on sociological and philosophical studies of science, science educators have begun to view argumentation as a central scientific practice that students should learn. In this article, we extend recent work to understand the structure of students' arguments to include judgments about their quality through content analyses of high school students' written explanations for 2 problems of natural selection. In these analyses, we aim to explicate the relations between students' conceptual understanding of specific domains and their epistemic understanding of scientific practices of argumentation as they try to learn science through inquiry. We present a method that assesses the warrant of explanatory claims, the sufficiency of the evidence explicitly cited for claims, and students' rhetorical use of specific inscriptions in their arguments. Students were attentive to the need to cite data, yet they often failed to cite sufficient evidence for claims. Students' references to specific inscriptions in their arguments often failed to articulate how specific data related to particular claims. We discuss these patterns of data citation in terms of what they suggest about students' epistemological ideas about explanation and consequent implications for inquiry-oriented, science education reforms.
South African student teachers were studied to see how they coped with requirements to teach science using argumentation. Lesson observations, plans, reflective logs, post-teaching interviews and assessment of pupils’ argumentation were used to compare student teachers’ preparedness and interactions with pupils. Two clusters of students were identified representing high preparedness and low interaction. A high degree of preparedness alone did not guarantee high levels of argumentation. Schools’ educational situations were independent of success in teaching argumentation. The outcomes and implications for further development of teaching critical thinking are discussed.
Role-playing games provide a particularly fruitful environment for the development of critical, ethical reasoning skills, a core component in developing a citizenry capable of fully participating in a cosmopolitan, democratic society. In this study, ethnographic interview participants recount particularly engaging ethical situations in their own game play. Through their responses, thematic trends develop that help us identify key elements in games that provide opportunities for the development of these crucial skills.
This paper compares the impact of a role-play and a conventional discussion on students' argumentation on an issue involving animal transgenesis. Students were confronted with an imaginable but fictional situation. They had to decide whether or not to approve a giant transgenic salmon farm being set up in a seaside village. Students received the same teaching and information, the only differences being in the debate situation. Students were asked to reach a decision on well-argued grounds, to identify areas of uncertainty and to define the condition or conditions under which a change of view might be considered. They had to write them down. Pre-post-tests were used to assess the students' opinions. The role-play and discussion were all video- and audio-taped and transcribed in full. The analysis focuses on the argumentative structure of the students' discourse and identifies the reference areas that students draw on to deliver their arguments. The theory of economics of 'greatness' or 'importance', which has recently emerged as a framework for the sociology of justification, has also been used in analysing students' discourse.
We investigated how 2 different curricular scaffolds (context-specific vs. generic), teacher instructional practices, and the interaction between these 2 types of support influenced students' learning of science content and their ability to write scientific arguments to explain phenomena. The context-specific scaffolds provided students with hints about the task and what content knowledge to use in or incorporate into their writing. The generic scaffolds supported students in understanding a general framework (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning) regardless of the content area or task. This study focused on an 8-week middle school chemistry curriculum that was enacted by 6 teachers with 578 students during the 2004–2005 school year. Analyses of identical pre- and posttests as well as videotapes of teacher enactments revealed that the curricular scaffolds and teacher instructional practices were synergistic in that the effect of the written curricular scaffolds depended on the teacher's enactment of the curriculum. The context-specific curricular scaffolds were more successful in supporting students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena, but only when teachers' enactments provided explicit domain-general support for the claim, evidence, and reasoning framework, suggesting the importance of both types of support in successful learning environments.
The paper focuses on principles for the design of school activities involving the collective reading of multiple texts. We show that the collective reading of multiple texts has been practiced in rare occasions in Western history. Scrutiny of the reasons for the persistence and the decline of this practice in different societies suggests that it may have powerful implications on our society and that we should be aware both of the opportunities it opens and of the dangers it hides. We articulate the theoretical tenets for an appropriate design of the collective reading of multiple texts. We then describe a new experimental study based on collective reading of multiple texts, and show how this reading impinged on further argumentative activities.
The research reported in this paper focussed on the design of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over two years between 1999 and 2001 in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first developmental phase, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support argumentation in the classroom and to assess teachers‘ development with teaching argumentation. Data were collected by videoing and audio recording the teachers attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of argumentation were developed based on Toulmin‘s argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of argumentation is teacher specific, as is the nature of the change. In the second phase of the project, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a control group at the beginning and end of the year. Here the emphasis lay on assessing the progression in student capabilities with argumentation. Hence data were collected from several lessons of two groups of students engaging in argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality, the findings show that there was an improvement in the quality of students‘ argumentation. In addition, the research offers methodological developments for work in this field.
The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a 1-year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio-recording and video-recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement argumentation. To assess the quality of argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Teachers' use of argumentation developed across the year, the pattern of use was teacher-specific, as was the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two showing no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers' oral contributions that facilitated and supported argumentation. All teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in argumentation; teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of argumentation (Toulmin's argument pattern analysis) also encouraged higher-order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers' facilitation of argumentation has helped to guide the development of in-service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers.
In this paper a set of methodological procedures to analyse students’ arguments is presented. Normative perspectives from the philosophy of science and naturalistic perspectives from sociolinguistics are brought together to analyse students dyadic discourse. The Toulmin layout of arguments was interpreted and applied to student arguments as they completed an electricity‐based performance assessment. Results showed that in these contexts students could complete the task without warranting all arguments. Conditions leading to the warranted arguments are explored. The paper concludes by suggesting extensions of this methodology for further research in science education.
What does it take to argue well? The goal of this series of studies was to better understand the cognitive skills entailed in argument, and their course of development, isolated from the verbal and social demands that argumentive discourse also entails. Findings indicated that young adolescents are less able than adults to coordinate attention to both positions in an argument, an age-related pattern that parallels one found in discourse. Contributing to this weakness was inattention to the opposing position (in both constrained and unconstrained formats), but not ability to address the opposing position when explicitly asked to do so. In addition to implementing the necessary dual focus, results point to the importance of developing epistemological understanding of the relevance of the opposing position to argument, as well as of the goals of argument more generally. The results also reflect the close parallels between dialogic and non-dialogic argument. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept "confirming" evidence at face value while subjecting "disconfirming" evidence to critical evaluation, and, as a result, draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant empirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather an increase in polarization. To test these assumptions, 48 undergraduates supporting and opposing capital punishment were exposed to 2 purported studies, one seemingly confirming and one seemingly disconfirming their existing beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty. As predicted, both proponents and opponents of capital punishment rated those results and procedures that confirmed their own beliefs to be the more convincing and probative ones, and they reported corresponding shifts in their beliefs as the various results and procedures were presented. The net effect of such evaluations and opinion shifts was the postulated increase in attitude polarization. (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Investigated whether postprimary education enhances informal reasoning skills, operationalized as skill in the construction of arguments about everyday issues. Eight groups of 40 Ss were balanced for sex, and contained 1st- and 4th-yr high school students, 1st- and 4th-yr undergraduates, 1st- and 4th-yr graduate students, or nonstudents with and without a bachelor's degree. Each S gave oral arguments on 2 issues; responses were scored for overall quality, number of lines of argument, and other factors. Analysis disclosed a borderline statistically significant impact of high school, college, and graduate school. However, both level of performance and rates of gain with education were much lower than expected. It is argued that present educational practices do little to foster the development of informal reasoning skills; education redesigned for this purpose could have a much greater impact. (31 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Two critical thinking skills—the tendency to avoid myside bias and to avoid one-sided thinking—were examined in three different experiments involving over 1200 participants and across two different paradigms. Robust indications of myside bias were observed in all three experiments. Participants gave higher evaluations to arguments that supported their opinions than those that refuted their prior positions. Likewise, substantial one-side bias was observed— participants were more likely to prefer a one-sided to a balanced argument. There was substantial variation in both types of bias, but we failed to find that participants of higher cognitive ability displayed less myside bias or less one-side bias. Although cognitive ability failed to associate with the magnitude of the myside bias, the strength and content of the prior opinion did predict the degree of myside bias shown. Our results indicate that cognitive ability—as defined by traditional psychometric indicators—turns out to be surprisingly independent of two of the most important critical thinking tendencies discussed in the literature.
This paper reports some methodological approaches to the analysis of argumentation discourse developed as part of the two-and-a-half year project titled “Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Scienc'' supported by the Economic and Social Research Council in the United Kingdom. In this project researchers collaborated with middle-school science teachers to develop models of instructional activities in an effort to make argumentation a component of instruction. We begin the paper with a brief theoretical justification for why we consider argumentation to be of significance to science education. We then contextualize the use of Toulmin's Argument Pattern in the study of argumentation discourse and provide a justification for the methodological outcomes our approach generates. We illustrate how our work refines and develops research methodologies in argumentation analysis. In particular, we present two methodological approaches to the analysis of argumentation resulting in whole-class as well as small-group student discussions. For each approach, we illustrate our coding scheme and some results as well as how our methodological approach has enabled our inquiry into the quality of argumentation in the classroom. We conclude with some implications for future research in argumentation in science education. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed88:915–933, 2004
The research reported in this study focuses on the design and evaluation of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over 2 years, between 1999 and 2001, in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support argumentation in the classroom, and to support and assess teachers' development with teaching argumentation. Data were collected by video- and audio-recording the teachers' attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of argumentation were developed based on Toulmin's argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of argumentation is teacher-specific, as is the nature of the change. In phase 2 of the project, the focus of this paper, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a comparison group at the beginning and end of the year. The purpose of this research was to assess the progression in student capabilities with argumentation. For this purpose, data were collected from 33 lessons by video-taping two groups of four students in each class engaging in argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality developed from Toulmin's argument pattern, the findings show that there was improvement in the quality of students' argumentation. This research presents new methodological developments for work in this field. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 994–1020, 2004
This article describes an effort to explore and enhance argumentation skills of Taiwanese grade 6 students through instruction
in socioscientific issues. An experienced elementary school teacher was given 8months of personalized instruction on argumentation
skills and socioscientific issues, then subsequently implemented a 17-h classroom unit on the establishment of Ma-Guo National
Park. His students learned to establish claims and warrants, construct counterarguments, offer supportive arguments, and provide
evidence for each one. Data consisted of student responses to questionnaires and individual follow-up interviews. A multiple
regression analysis revealed that success in learning argumentation skills was not substantially related to pre-instruction
argumentation skills, but significantly related to the student ability levels. High-ability students were significantly better
than low-ability students at generating complete arguments. Most students elaborated their arguments, and more high-ability
students offered rebuttals after instruction. However, even these high achievers did not completely understand the meaning
of evidence and often misused supplementary warrants as evidence.
Key wordsability level-argumentation skills-elementary school students-science instruction-socioscientific issues
Argumentation is a key component of scientific practice. It involves a dialectical balance of opposition and agreement, requiring negotiation and affording conceptual change through the co-construction of understandings. In classroom science inquiry with complex visual data representations, argumentation is an essential discourse structure through which students make sense of data and domain concepts. This study analyzed the argumentation practices of middle school students conducting an earth science inquiry project using data visualization tools. Analysis of spoken and gestural interactions during small-group work of one group of students in each of three classrooms revealed three common modes in which students employed visual data in argumentation: (1) using data-referenced talk and gesture to challenge authoritative positioning; (2) using gesture to participate in argumentation with incomplete conceptual vocabulary; and (3) using argumentation about data as a means of co-constructing the goals of academic tasks.
Argumentation is an important skill to learn. It is valuable not only in many professional contexts, such as the law, science, politics, and business, but also in everyday life. However, not many people are good arguers. In response to this, researchers and practitioners over the past 15–20 years have developed software tools both to support and teach argumentation. Some of these tools are used in individual fashion, to present students with the “rules” of argumentation in a particular domain and give them an opportunity to practice, while other tools are used in collaborative fashion, to facilitate communication and argumentation between multiple, and perhaps distant, participants. In this paper, we review the extensive literature on argumentation systems, both individual and collaborative, and both supportive and educational, with an eye toward particular aspects of the past work. More specifically, we review the types of argument representations that have been used, the various types of interaction design and ontologies that have been employed, and the system architecture issues that have been addressed. In addition, we discuss intelligent and automated features that have been imbued in past systems, such as automatically analyzing the quality of arguments and providing intelligent feedback to support and/or tutor argumentation. We also discuss a variety of empirical studies that have been done with argumentation systems, including, among other aspects, studies that have evaluated the effect of argument diagrams (e.g., textual versus graphical), different representations, and adaptive feedback on learning argumentation. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the “lessons learned” from this large and impressive body of work, particularly focusing on lessons for the CSCL research community and its ongoing efforts to develop computer-mediated collaborative argumentation systems.
The Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) activities were designed to promote lifelong science learning. This paper describes the partnership process that guided the design as well as the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework that gave the partnership a head start on creating effective materials. KIE activities take advantage of internet materials to engage students in debate of science questions like 'how far does light go?' to make scientifically oriented design decisions, and to critique science claims in the popular press. Other papers in this collection describe the design studies carried out to improve KIE activities. These studies have implications for improving the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework and can inform future designers of science instruction.
This article explores how students' epistemological ideas about the nature of science interact with their conceptual understanding of a particular domain, as reflected in written explanations for an event of natural selection constructed by groups of high school students through a technology-supported curriculum about evolution. Analyses intended to disentangle conceptual and epistemic aspects of explanation reveal that groups sought plausible causal accounts of observed data, and were sensitive to the need for causal coherence, while articulating explanations consistent with the theory of natural selection. Groups often failed to explicitly cite data to support key claims, however, both because of difficulty in interpreting data and because they did not seem to see explicit evidence as crucial to an explanation. These findings reveal that students have productive epistemic resources to bring to bear during inquiry, but highlight the need for an epistemic discourse around student-generated artifacts to deepen both the conceptual and epistemological understanding students may develop through inquiry.
Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments focuses on how new pedagogical scenarios, task environments and communication tools within Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environments can favour collaborative and productive confrontations of ideas, evidence, arguments and explanations, or arguing to learn.
This book is the first that has assembled the work of internationally renowned scholars on argumentation-related CSCL research. All chapters present in-depth analyses of the processes by which the interactive confrontation of cognitions can lead to collaborative learning, on the basis of a wide variety of theoretical models, empirical data and Internet-based tools.
Although the study of argumentation has long held a cherished position in the communication discipline, there is still a question regarding individuals' use of various argumentative skills. This study examined the generation of arguments, refutations, rebuttals, and types of evidence during an argumentative interaction. Participants argued with trained confederates who took the opposing view on the issue of doctor-assisted suicide. Discussions were audio-taped and coded. Results indicated that people presented more refutations than arguments and overall, evidence and rebuttals were presented infrequently.
Basing its arguments in current perspectives on the nature of the scientific enterprise, which see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists, this article develops the case for the inclusion and central role of argument in science education. Beginning with a review of the nature of argument, it discusses the function and purpose of dialogic argument in the social construction of scientific knowledge and the interpretation of empirical data. The case is then advanced that any education about science, rather than education in science, must give the role of argument a high priority if it is to give a fair account of the social practice of science, and develop a knowledge and understanding of the evaluative criteria used to establish scientific theories. Such knowledge is essential to enhance the public understanding of science and improve scientific literacy. The existing literature, and work that has attempted to use argument within science education, is reviewed to show that classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop young people's ability to construct argument. Furthermore, the case is advanced that the lack of opportunities for the practice of argument within science classrooms, and lack of teacher's pedagogical skills in organizing argumentative discourse within the classroom are significant impediments to progress in the field.
The purpose of this study was to test a taxonomy of seven proposed responses to anomalous data. Our results generally supported the taxonomy but indicated that one additional type of response should be added to the taxonomy. We conclude that there are eight possible responses to anomalous data: (a) ignoring the data, (b) rejecting the data, (c) professing uncertainty about the validity of the data, (d) excluding the data from the domain of the current theory, (e) holding the data in abeyance, (f) reinterpreting the data, (g) accepting the data and making peripheral changes to the current theory, and (h) accepting the data and changing theories. We suggest that this taxonomy could help science teachers in two ways. First, science teachers could use the taxonomy to try to anticipate how students might react to anomalous data so as to make theory change more likely. Second, science teachers could use the taxonomy as a framework to guide classroom discussion about the nature of scientific rationality. In addition, the taxonomy suggests directions for future research.
Scientific explanation is an important inquiry practice emphasized in national standards, yet research has neglected the role of the teacher in supporting students' explanation construction. The present study considers whether two teacher practices, modeling explanation and making a framework for explanation explicit to students, predict students' improvement in explanation during a middle-school chemistry unit. Six teachers enacted the unit with a total of 21 classes in urban public schools. We coded the teachers' practices during a focal lesson in which they introduced their students to scientific explanation. Regression analyses showed that teachers' scores for the two practices made unique contributions to the prediction of students' posttest scores for one component of the explanation framework, reasoning (i.e. justification for why evidence supports a claim). Furthermore, charting students' explanations across the unit showed that both teacher practices had an immediate impact on students' reasoning in the focal lesson, relative to the pretest, an effect that carried through the unit. We identify avenues for future research that build on our initial effort at mapping teacher practices to student learning outcomes for explanation.
Constructing scientific explanations and participating in argumentative discourse are seen as essential practices of scientific inquiry (e.g., R. Driver, P. Newton, & J. Osborne, 2000). In this paper, we identify three goals of engaging in these related scientific practices: (1) sensemaking, (2) articulating, and (3) persuading. We propose using these goals to understand student engagement with these practices, and to design instructional interventions to support students. Thus, we use this framework as a lens to investigate the question: What successes and challenges do students face as they engage in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation? We study this in the context of a curriculum that provides students and teachers with an instructional framework for constructing and defending scientific explanations. Through this analysis, we find that students consistently use evidence to make sense of phenomenon and articulate those understandings but they do not consistently attend to the third goal of persuading others of their understandings. Examining the third goal more closely reveals that persuading others of an understanding requires social interactions that are often inhibited by traditional classroom interactions. Thus, we conclude by proposing design strategies for addressing the social challenges inherent in the related scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. (C) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 93:26-55, 2009
Confirmation bias has long been discussed in the behavioral decision-making research stream. Although decision support systems were designed to counter cognitive biases and speed up information processing, confirmation bias still can be observed during the decision-making process and causes some unwanted behaviors, such as selective reading. An experimental design was conducted to examine the impact of confirmation bias in a computer-supported decision-making context. In addition, we attempted to explore whether the providing of computer-mediated counter-argument can effectively eliminate the impact caused by selective reading. The experiment results show that confirmation bias can be observed when decision makers possess strong preconceptions and selective reading behaviors, caused by confirmation bias, resulting in skewed adjustment and high confidence. This means that computer-mediated counter-arguments can effectively reduce the effects caused by confirmation bias as well as lead to higher satisfaction with the decision outcome. Lastly, the research results were discussed and implications of this finding for academics and practitioners were provided.
This study explores the arguments used by 14-year-old students in making decisions about the design of a road in their area. The whole activity was based on an actual problem at the time the research took place. The procedure was a sequence, where students worked first individually, then in groups and finally they had to take a class decision. Then they had to realize one of the final proposals and design the construction of a bridge that their planning had involved. This paper first elaborates the general perspective of such an approach; it then describes the process of argumentation and analyses the nature of the students' arguments, which are discussed on the basis of a specifically constructed network.
A central theme throughout the impressive series of philosophical books and articles Stephen Toulmin has published since 1948 is the way in which assertions and opinions concerning all sorts of topics, brought up in everyday life or in academic research, can be rationally justified. Is there one universal system of norms, by which all sorts of arguments in all sorts of fields must be judged, or must each sort of argument be judged according to its own norms? In The Uses of Argument (1958) Toulmin sets out his views on these questions for the first time. In spite of initial criticisms from logicians and fellow philosophers, The Uses of Argument has been an enduring source of inspiration and discussion to students of argumentation from all kinds of disciplinary background for more than forty years.
Earlier research [Discourse Process. 23 (2/3) (2002) 135] on argumentation suggests that adults use advanced discourse strategies more consistently, more frequently, and more flexibly than do adolescents. The present study examines the development of argumentation skills during adolescence. Forty-eight seventh and eighth graders were assigned to one of two conditions. Both groups engaged in pretest and posttest measures of strategy use on two topics (capital punishment and abortion) and then engaged in five weekly dialogues on the main topic only (capital punishment). Control group participants engaged in dialogue only while experimental group participants engaged in a combination of dialogue and paired reflection on dialogues. Experimental group participants showed greater advances in argumentative discourse than control group participants. Results suggest that change in adolescents does indeed progress in the direction of adult discourse and that a combination of practice and reflection is more effective in promoting change than practice alone. The implications of these findings for a developmental model of argumentative discourse are discussed.
The Skills of Argument presents a comprehensive empirical study of informal reasoning as argument, involving subjects across the life span. Subjects ranging in age from adolescence to late adulthood were asked to describe their views on social problems that people have occasion to think and talk about in everyday life, such as crime and unemployment. In addition to providing supporting evidence for their theories, subjects were asked to contemplate alternative theories and counterarguments and to evaluate new evidence on the topics. This is the first major study of informal reasoning across the life span. Highlighting the importance of argumentive reasoning in everyday thought, the book offers a theoretical framework for conceptualizing and studying thinking as argument. The findings address issues of major importance to cognitive and developmental psychologists, as well as educators concerned with improving the quality of people's thinking. The work is also relevant to philosophers, political scientists, and linguists interested in informal reasoning and argumentive discourse.
In the first part of this article it is argued that knowledge of social aspects of science are of importance and relevance for science education for citizenship. The focus is on the importance of debate, criticism and evaluation of knowledge claims, within the scientific community. Knowledge of the nature and the limits of science are necessary as tools to interpret and debate statements with a science dimension occurring in debates over socio-scientific issues. The second part of this article presents a teaching model for engaging students in thoughtful decision-making on controversial socio-scientific issues. The main features of the teaching model are the evaluation and criticism of knowledge and opinions and the establishing of a consensual conclusion that includes a recommended action. Using the consensus project model implies an introduction to important social aspects of science concerning evaluation and validation of knowledge claims.
addresses everyday reasoning and the aspects of intelligence that contribute most to its good practice
is everyday reasoning generally sound / does undermotivation account for faulty situation modeling / does lack of knowledge account four faulty situation modeling / do variations in general intelligence affect situation modeling / does know-how about reasoning improve situation modeling / why people reason as they do: a makes-sense epistemology / how people could reason better: a critical epistemology
the roots of intelligence / prior knowledge / interest / IQ [intelligence quotient] / metacognitive know-how (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Basing its arguments in current perspectives on the nature of the scientific enterprise, which see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists, this article develops the case for the inclusion and central role of argument in science education. Beginning with a review of the nature of argument, it discusses the function and purpose of dialogic argument in the social construction of scientific knowledge and the interpretation of empirical data. The case is then advanced that any education about science, rather than education in science, must give the role of argument a high priority if it is to give a fair account of the social practice of science, and develop a knowledge and understanding of the evaluative criteria used to establish scientific theories. Such knowledge is essential to enhance the public understanding of science and improve scientific literacy. The existing literature, and work that has attempted to use argument within science education, is reviewed to show that classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop young people's ability to construct argument. Furthermore, the case is advanced that the lack of opportunities for the practice of argument within science classrooms, and lack of teacher's pedagogical skills in organizing argumentative discourse within the classroom are significant impediments to progress in the field. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed84:287–312, 2000.
This study examined the outcomes of a unit that integrates explicit teaching of general reasoning patterns into the teaching of a specific science content. Specifically, this article examined the teaching of argumentation skills in the context of dilemmas in human genetics. Before instruction only a minority (16.2%) of the students referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments in the context of dilemmas in genetics. Approximately 90% of the students were successful in formulating simple arguments. An assessment that took place following instruction supported the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation into the teaching of dilemmas in human genetics enhances performance in both biological knowledge and argumentation. An increase was found in the frequency of students who referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments. Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in a test of genetics knowledge. An increase was also found in the quality of students' argumentation. Students were able to transfer the reasoning abilities taught in the context of genetics to the context of dilemmas taken from everyday life. The effects of metacognitive thinking and of changing students' thinking dispositions by modifying what is considered valuable in the class culture are discussed. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 35–62, 2002
The role of the teacher is essential for students' successful engagement in scientific inquiry practices. This study focuses on teachers' use of an 8-week chemistry curriculum that explicitly supports students in one particular inquiry practice, the construction of scientific arguments to explain phenomena in which students justify their claims using evidence and reasoning. Participants included 6 teachers and 568 students. Videotapes, teacher questionnaires, and student pre- and posttests were analyzed to develop case studies that characterized the support the teachers provided their students for scientific argumentation and subsequent student learning. Patterns from the case studies suggest that one particular instructional practice, the way teachers defined scientific argumentation, characterized teachers' support and influenced the other practices they used in their classrooms. In some cases, the teachers' definitions of scientific argumentation did not align with the intended learning goal in the curriculum materials. These teachers' greater simplification of this complex inquiry practice resulted in decreased learning gains in terms of students' ability to write scientific arguments to explain phenomena using appropriate evidence and reasoning. Educative curriculum materials can have a positive impact on teachers' classroom support for scientific argumentation, but how the teachers use these materials influences student learning. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed93: 233–268, 2009
The purpose of this paper is to examine university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Drawing from rhetorical studies of science writing and studies of argumentation in science education, a model for assessing students' arguments is proposed that considers the relative epistemic status of propositions comprising students' written texts. The study was conducted in an introductory university oceanography course in a large public university that utilized an interactive CD-ROM that provided geological data sets for student exploration of scientific questions. Student arguments were analyzed through a process of sorting propositions by epistemic level and identifying the explicit links within and across levels. These epistemic levels were defined by discipline-specific geological constructs from descriptions of data, to identification of features, to relational aspects of features, to theoretically formulated assertions. This form of argumentation analysis allowed for assessment of each student's writing on normative grounds and for comparisons across students' papers. Results show promise for the argumentation model as a methodological tool. The examination of epistemic status of knowledge claims provided ways of distinguishing the extent to which students adhered to the genre conventions specified by the task, i.e., providing evidentiary support for their argument concerning the theory of plate tectonics with real earth data. We draw on the findings to discuss ways argumentation theory can contribute to reform in science education. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed86:314–342, 2002; Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10024
Charles Darwin once described On the Origin of Species as “one long argument”. This sentence can be viewed as embodying several of the different dimensions of argumentation discussed
in this book. On the one hand, it provides evidence, coming from someone with undisputable authority, on argument being an
integral part of the construction of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, when applied to the outstanding piece of scientific
thinking that is On the Origin of Species, the description combines two aspects of argumentation. The first aspect relates to the justification of knowledge claims,
by marshalling converging lines of reasoning (see Kelly, Regev, & Prothero, this book), theoretical ideas and empirical evidence
toward a claim. Darwin weaved together population theory from Malthus, or uniformitarianism from Lyell, with empirical data
gathered in his voyage to Central and South America in his bold claim of the theory of natural selection. A second aspect
of argumentation has to do with argumentation as persuasion, in Darwin's case as an attempt to convince an audience, composed
both of scientists and of the general public, that the animals and plants had changed, that the species living on Earth descended
from other species instead of having being created all at a time. Darwin was well aware that the task of persuading his contemporaries
was not an easy one, such awareness being one of the reasons for delaying the publication of his book for about twenty years.
In fact a joint presentation by Darwin and Wallace in the Linnean Society in 1858 stirred little interest, and the president
of the Society summarised the year as one that “has not indeed been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once
revolutionize science” (Beddall, 1968, pp 304–305). However, one year later, the publication of Darwin's book launched a great
controversy, corresponding yet to another aspect of argumentation, as debate among two parties with contrasting positions
on a subject.
An important skill in solving problems, especially ill-structured problems, is the production of coherent arguments to justify
solutions and actions. Because direct instruction in argumentation has produced inconsistent results and cannot effectively
support online learning, we examined the use of online argumentation scaffolds to engage and support coherent argumentation.
In this study, we showed that providing a constraint-based argumentation scaffold during group problem-solving activities
increased the generation of coherent arguments. The same scaffold further resulted in significantly more problem-solving actions
during collaborative group discussions. The effects of the scaffold varied for problem type. Groups that solved ill-structured
problems produced more extensive arguments. When solving ill-structured problems, students need more argumentation support
because of the importance of generating and supporting alternative solutions. The close relationship between argumentation
and problem solving, especially ill-structured problem solving, is significant. The effects of the argument scaffold consistently
transferred to the production of arguments during individual problem solving. Students used the familiar argumentation scripts
while solving problems individually.
Meaningful learning requires deep engagement with ideas. Deep engagement is supported by the critical thinking skill of argumentation.
Learning to argue represents an important way of thinking that facilitates conceptual change and is essential for problem
solving. In order to appropriately apply argumentation practices to learning, we first discuss reasons for using argumentation
in learning environments or instruction. Next, we describe the skills of argumentation along with difficulties that learners
experience when trying to argue. Following a brief description of the kinds of argumentation to persuade an audience of the
validity of your position or solution (rhetorical) or to attempt to resolve differences in opinions or solutions (dialectical),
we describe methods and guidelines for eliciting arguments from students. We conclude with processes for assessing the quality
of student-generated arguments.
KeywordsArgumentation-Problem solving-Computer-supported collaborative argumentation
Although most online learning environments are predominately text based, researchers have argued that representational support for the conceptual structure of a problem would address problems of coherence and convergence that have been shown to be associated with threaded discussions and more effectively support collaborative knowledge construction. The study described in this paper sets out to investigate the merits of knowledge mapping representations as an adjunct to or replacement for threaded discussion in problem solving by asynchronously communicating dyads. Results show that users of knowledge maps created more hypotheses earlier in the experimental sessions and elaborated on them more than users of threaded discussions. Participants using knowledge maps were more likely to converge on the same conclusion and scored significantly higher on post-test questions that required integration of information distributed across dyads in a hidden profile design, suggesting that there was greater collaboration during the session. These results were most consistent when a knowledge map with embedded notes was the primary means of interaction rather than when it augmented a threaded discussion.The paper also offers a methodological contribution: a paradigm for practical experimental study of asynchronous collaboration. It is crucial to understand how to support collaborative knowledge construction in the asynchronous settings prevalent in online learning, yet prior experimental research has focused on face-to-face and synchronous collaboration due to the pragmatic problems of conducting controlled studies of asynchronous interaction. A protocol is outlined that enables study of asynchronous collaboration in a controlled setting.
This study examined the predictors of belief bias in a formal reasoning paradigm (a syllogistic reasoning task) and myside bias in two informal reasoning paradigms (an argument generation task and an experiment evaluation task). Neither cognitive ability nor thinking dispositions predicted myside bias, but both cognitive ability and thinking dispositions were significant predictors of the ability to overcome belief bias in the syllogistic reasoning task. However, instructional set (either decontextualizing or non-directive instructions) had a significant effect on myside bias in the argument generation task, as well as a marginal effect on the syllogistic reasoning task. On the latter, and to some extent on the former task, instructional set interacted with cognitive ability. The debiasing effect of decontextualizing instructions was particularly large for those participants in the lowest quartile of cognitive ability.
Abstract Empirical studies and theory suggest that educational dialogue can be used to support learners in the development of reasoning, critical thinking and argumentation. This paper presents an educational design for synchronous online peer discussion that guides student dialogue in ways that lead to improved argumentation and collaborative knowledge development. This design includes a mediating interface – or tool, linked to a broader set of online educational activities – a designed local context, where the latter aims to provide conditions that support argumentation. The approach is based on collaborative working and dialogue game approaches to discussion. Preliminary findings with UK Open University students showed the argumentation process was more coherent, varied, deeper and extended when using our interaction design compared with the use of a simple unstructured interface.
We designed Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) debate projects to take advantage of internet resources and promote student understanding of science. Design decisions were guided by the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration instructional framework. We report on design studies that test and elaborate on our instructional framework. Our learning studies assess the arguments students construct using the Knowledge Integration Environment debate project about light propagation and, explore the relationship between students' views of the nature of science and argument construction. We examine how students use evidence, determine when they add further ideas and claims and measure progress in understanding light propagation. To a modeate degree, students' views of the nature of science align with the quality of the arguments.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. This article investigated the influence of scaffolding on 331 seventh-grade students' writing of scientific explanations during an 8-week, project-based chemistry unit in which the construction of scientific explanations is a key learning goal. The unit makes an instructional model for explanation explicit to students through a focal lesson and reinforces that model through subsequent written support for each investigation. Students received 1 of 2 treatments in terms of the type of written support: continuous, involving detailed support for every investigation, or faded, involving less support over time. The analyses showed significant learning gains for students for all components of scientific explanation (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning). However, on posttest items lacking scaffolds, the faded group gave stronger explanations in terms of their reasoning compared to the continuous group. Fading written scaffolds better equipped students to write explanations when they were not provided with support.