Teaching critical questions about argumentation through the revising process: effects of strategy instruction on college students’ argumentative essays

The effects of self-regulated strategy development revising instruction for college students that targeted the use of argumentation schemes and critical questions were assessed in three conditions. In the first condition, students were taught to revise their essays by asking and answering critical questions about the argument from consequences and argument from example schemes while writing about controversial topics. In the second condition, students were taught to revise their essays by using argumentation schemes to justify their standpoint, but did not learn the critical questions. In the third condition, students received no instruction about either the argumentation schemes or the critical questions. Compared to students in the contrasting conditions, those who were taught to ask and answer critical questions wrote essays that were of higher quality, and included more counterarguments, alternative standpoints, and rebuttals. These findings indicate that strategy instruction that includes critical standards for argumentation increases college students’ sensitivity to alternative perspectives.     

Writing in Mathematics: An Alternative Form of Communication for Academically Low‐Achieving Students

Abstract. Classroom communication figures prominently in current math reform efforts. In this study, we analyze how one teacher used writing to support communication in a seventh‐grade, low‐track mathematics class. For one school year, we studied four low‐achieving students in the class. Students wrote in journals on a weekly basis. Using classroom observations and interviews with the teacher, we developed profiles of the four students, capturing their participation in class discussions. The profiles highlighted an important similarity among the four students: marginal participation in both small‐group and whole‐class discussions. However, our analysis of the students' journals identified multiple instances where the students were able to explain their mathematical reasoning, revealing their conceptual understanding, ability to explain, and skill at representing a problem. In this respect, journals potentially facilitate another important form of classroom communication. The promise of writing is that it offers an alternative to the visions of classroom communication that are strictly oral in nature.     

Teaching Mature Students

ABSTRACT

Online discussions are widely viewed as a valuable tool for encouraging student engagement and promoting interaction with course material outside of the traditional classroom. Strategies for conducting online discussions vary and are not confined to traditional, university-sponsored learning management systems (LMS). Social media platforms such as Facebook, which provide a variety of social benefits to students, might also represent a viable mechanism for educational information exchange and learning. Our study tested this proposition by comparing the effects of a Facebook-based and LMS-based online discussion forum on students' participation, achievement of learning goals, and overall course performance. Our findings suggest that different forums can affect classroom dynamics and student learning in different ways. While Facebook may be better at fostering student participation and encouraging peer-to-peer dialogue, the university-sponsored LMS may be a more effective tool for encouraging students to develop coherent arguments and apply course content in other contexts. Since this study shows that platform of an online discussion assignment matters, college instructors should consider the benefits and drawbacks of each platform before developing an online discussion assignment. Instructor choice of platform should depend on course content, instructor's teaching preferences, and online discussion assignment goals.     

Students’ Argumentation Skills across Two Socio-Scientific Issues in a Confucian Classroom: Is transfer possible?

This paper argues the possible simultaneous development and transfer of students' argumentation skills from one socio-scientific issue to another in a Confucian classroom. In Malaysia, the Chinese vernacular schools follow a strict Confucian philosophy in the teaching and learning process. The teacher talks and the students listen. This case study explored the transfer of argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in such a Form 2 (8th grade) classroom. An instructional support to complement the syllabus was utilised. The teaching approach in the instructional support was more constructivist in nature and designed to introduce argumentation skills which is uncommon in a Confucian classroom. The two socio-scientific issues were genetically modified foods and deforestation. This paper presents a part of the bigger case study that was conducted. Data collected from written arguments were analysed using an analytical framework built upon Toulmin's ideas. The whole class analysis indicated progression in students' argumentation skills in their ability to give more valid grounds and rebuttals during the transfer. The individual analysis suggests progression in the majority of students' performance, while several students demonstrated non-progression when they faced a different socio-scientific issue.     

LEARNING ARGUMENTATION SKILLS THROUGH INSTRUCTION IN SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES: THE EFFECT OF ABILITY LEVEL

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 8 months 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.     

The Structure of Scientific Arguments by Secondary Science Teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics

Just as scientific knowledge is constructed using distinct modes of inquiry (e.g. experimental or historical), arguments constructed during science instruction may vary depending on the mode of inquiry underlying the topic. The purpose of this study was to examine whether and how secondary science teachers construct scientific arguments during instruction differently for topics that rely on experimental or historical modes of inquiry. Four experienced high-school science teachers were observed daily during instructional units for both experimental and historical science topics. The main data sources include classroom observations and teacher interviews. The arguments were analyzed using Toulmin's argumentation pattern revealing specific patterns of arguments in teaching topics relying on these 2 modes of scientific inquiry. The teachers presented arguments to their students that were rather simple in structure but relatively authentic to the 2 different modes. The teachers used far more evidence in teaching topics based on historical inquiry than topics based on experimental inquiry. However, the differences were implicit in their teaching. Furthermore, their arguments did not portray the dynamic nature of science. Very few rebuttals or qualifiers were provided as the teachers were presenting their claims as if the data led straightforward to the claim. Implications for classroom practice and research are discussed.     

High School Students’ Informal Reasoning on a Socio‐scientific Issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses

Recently, the significance of learners’ informal reasoning on socio‐scientific issues has received increasing attention among science educators. To gain deeper insights into this important issue, an integrated analytic framework was developed in this study. With this framework, 71 Grade 10 students’ informal reasoning about nuclear energy usage was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. It was found that the students in this study tended to process reasoning from multiple perspectives, and most of them were prone to make evidence‐based decisions. However, less than 40% of the participants were able to construct rebuttals against counter‐arguments. It was also revealed that students’ abundant usage of supportive arguments did not guarantee for their counter‐argument construction as well as rebuttal construction, but their usage of counter‐arguments might act as precursors to their construction of rebuttals. In addition, learners’ usage of multiple reasoning modes might help them propose more arguments and, in particular, generate more counter‐arguments, which may act as precursors to their rebuttal construction. This study also showed evidence that students’ scientific knowledge that might be mainly acquired from school science instruction could be viewed as important foundation for better informal reasoning and decision‐making on socio‐scientific issues.     

Teaching with the Case Method Online: Pure Versus Hybrid Approaches

The impact of hybrid classroom/distance education approaches is examined in the context of the case method. Four distinct semester‐long treatments, which varied mixes of classroom and online discussion, were used to teach a graduate MIS survey course. Specific findings suggest that by using Web technology, college instructors may offer students the option of participating in high‐quality courses using the case method pedagogy in an online environment. Students not only appear to do as well as in the traditional classroom, but the data suggest that students in the online environment may perform better at multiple levels of learning outcomes, especially when using a blend of classroom and online technologies. Furthermore, the precepts of the case method pedagogy may be enhanced by the use of online discussions. Instructors employing the technique may find their own importance devalued, while the time demands of the approach can be much greater than for traditional classes. The findings infer that it is the model of learning and its fit with supporting technologies, rather than the presence of technology per se, which enhances learning outcomes.     

The Determination of Children’s Knowledge of Global Lunar Patterns from Online Essays Using Text Mining Analysis

The purpose of this study was to use text mining analysis of early adolescents’ online essays to determine their knowledge of global lunar patterns. Australian and American students in grades five to seven wrote about global lunar patterns they had discovered by sharing observations with each other via the Internet. These essays were analyzed for the students’ inclusion of words associated with the shape (i.e., phase), orientation and location of the Moon along with words about similarities and differences. Almost all students wrote about shape but fewer wrote about orientation or location. Students infrequently included words about similarities or differences in the same sentence with shape, orientation or location. Similar to studies about children’s and adults’ lunar misconceptions, it was found that male and female early adolescents also lacked a robust understanding of global lunar patterns.     

Collaborative learning and the construction of common knowledge

In collaborative learning, students not only have to acquire knowledge, they also have to learn to regulate the process of acquiring knowledge. In the traditional classroom, the function of regulation rests with the teacher. In the collaborative classroom, however, the responsibility for learning has in part been handed over to the students. We examine how students, who work as members of a community of learners, construct shared understanding. in particular, we want to explore what interactive and discursive tools students use in their collaboration. We present observations made during a series of innovative mathematics lessons in an 8th grade classroom at a Dutch primary school in which children (between 11 and 13 years of age) worked as “researchers” who were encouraged to formulate questions for exploration and to collaborate in answering them. Both in small group discussions and in discussions involving the whole class, students worked on the construction of arguments and the creation of shared knowledge. The construction and diffusion of knowledge occurred in “cycles of argumentation” to which many children contributed and in which ideas were repeated and elaborated upon. Because, in students’ collaboration, learning is made dependent on proposing and critically discussing arguments, the character of knowledge, acquired under these circumstances, is different from knowledge acquired in a more traditional classroom setting.     

Comparing Vignette Instruction and Assessment Tasks to Classroom Observations and Reflections

The growing body of research on the use of vignettes in teacher education courses suggests that vignette-based instruction and assessment tasks may represent a viable alternative to traditional forms of scaffolded instruction and reflective essays following classroom observations, thereby creating a bridge between college and K–12 classrooms for teacher candidates. In this study, the authors compare the effectiveness of vignette instruction and assessment tasks with teacher observation-reflections on subject matter mastery in two sections of an online graduate educational psychology course. One section completed vignette assessment tasks while a second section wrote reflective essays following K–12 classroom observations. Both sections also completed a cumulative posttest (ten forced-choice items, a vignette task, and a video reflection task). Results confirmed the null hypothesis that there would be no significant differences in mastery of subject matter across the two groups, extending the effective application of the vignette as an alternative to reflective essays following classroom observations.     

Valuing Science: A Turkish–American comparison

A problem that is still unexplored in the field of socioscientific issues (SSI) and that was explored in this study is how different students decide upon a SSI they are discussing, how their justifications change during the instruction and how they use (or not) the evidence from the learning environment to support their justifications. For the purposes of this study, two classes (12–13-year-old students) with diverse characteristics were selected from two different schools in the UK. Class A students, considered high achievers come from a white-British background. Class B students considered average achievers come from an Asian British background. The students engaged in discussions regarding a SSI (Should we kill the grey squirrel to save the red?), supported by an online learning environment. Students’ written arguments, classroom discussions, and classroom observations were collected and analysed. The findings suggest that even though the two classes engaged with the same learning environment, the decisions and justifications provided by the pairs in the two classes were quite distinct. The students used the evidence from the learning environment in ways which supported their decision, and tended to ignore evidence if these contradicted their decision. Furthermore, students’ justifications support the hypothesis that their decision was based on whether they identified with the actors of the issue. Implications for research include exploring how students identify with the actors of a SSI to enable us to support them overcoming their personal narratives and becoming critical evaluators of scientific knowledge.     

Can Spelling Checkers Help the Novice Writer?

This paper argues that one type of text analyser—the spelling checker—can help non-proficient writers. 16 students in a Singapore classroom wrote compositions by hand for one month; the following month they composed their compositions directly on the computer. Observations of students' composing behaviours and a comparison of the lexis used in two students' hand-written and computer essays show that students use the spelling checker for two functions: (a) word-correction, in which they locate and correct some of their spelling errors, and (b) word-generation, in which they use the spelling checker to generate words that are in their receptive but not their productive vocabularies. The spelling checker benefits those students whose initial writing ability is poor and whose writing is blocked by an emphasis on the mechanical aspects of writing.     

Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom?

This article reports on two experiments where undergraduates read five documents on a scientific topic and afterwards answered comprehension questions and wrote either summaries or argument essays on the topic. In the first experiment, students who were instructed to work with the documents for the purpose of summarizing their contents displayed better comprehension and integration of document contents than did students instructed to construct arguments from the documents. In the second experiment, focusing on whether the effects of task instructions on multiple-documents comprehension and integration could be moderated by students’ prior knowledge, it was found that only students with high prior knowledge were able to take advantage of instructions to construct arguments while reading, whereas low-knowledge readers seemed to be more hindered than helped by such task instructions. Theoretical as well as educational implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Effects of Gender Interaction Patterns on Student Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

In this study we examined response patterns in exchanges between males and females and their effects on gender participation in five online debates. Students classified messages into arguments, evidence, critiques, and elaborations while posting messages to the debates to facilitate argumentation and the sequential analysis of message-response sequences. The findings revealed no differences in number of critiques posted in response to arguments because females were just as likely as males to critique messages from both males and females, and because females responded to males with critiques at a higher than expected frequency. Posthoc analysis revealed strong indications that females posted fewer rebuttals to the critiques of females than males, and males posted more rebuttals to the critiques of females than females. The methods used in this study illustrate a process-oriented approach to explain and predict gender differences in participation and serve as a framework for future research on gender participation, group interaction, and strategies for facilitating collaborative argumentation and problem solving.     

Missed Opportunities for Science Learning: Unacknowledged Unscientific Arguments in Asynchronous Online and Face-to-Face Discussions

We explored the scientific argumentation that occurs among university biology students during an argumentation task implemented in two environments: face-to-face in a classroom and online in an asynchronous discussion. We observed 10 student groups, each composed of three students. Our analysis focused on how students respond to their peers’ unscientific arguments, which we define as assertions, hypotheses, propositions, or explanations that are inaccurate or incomplete from a scientific perspective. Unscientific arguments provide opportunities for productive dissent, scientific argumentation, and conceptual development of scientifically desirable conceptions. We found that students did not respond to the majority of unscientific arguments in both environments. Challenges to unscientific arguments were expressed as a question or through explanation, although the latter was more common online than face-to-face. Students demonstrated significantly more epistemic distancing in the face-to-face environment than the online environment. We discuss the differences in discourse observed in both environments and teaching implications. We also provide direction for future research seeking to address the challenges of engaging students in productive scientific argumentation in both face-to-face and online environments.     

Grade 5 Students’ Online Argumentation about Their In-Class Inquiry Investigations

This study examined the extent to which fifth-grade students participate in online argumentation and the argument patterns they produced about the inquiry-based investigations completed using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in their science classes. One hundred twenty-nine students from five classes of two teachers in a Midwestern public school completed two inquiry-based investigation units, one per semester, followed by asynchronous online discussions using the Moodle forum. Among the 129 students, 107 students produced 739 notes in the plant investigation online discussion and 111 students produced 686 notes in the human health investigation online discussion. Results indicate that students were actively engaged in the online discussions about inquiry investigations with comments being focused on providing more evidence and backing for claims and negotiating evidence in both investigations. The students also engaged in challenging and querying the test procedures and reference sources as the basis for evidence. Implications are discussed for science teaching and learning and further study on argument-based inquiry in online environments.     

Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills Among Inservice Science Teachers Via Embedded Assessment

Testing students on higher order thinking skills may reinforce these skills among them. To research this assertion, we developed a graduate course for inservice science teachers in a framework of a “Journal Club”—a hybrid course which combines face-to-face classroom discussions with online activities, interrelating teaching, learning, and assessment. The course involves graduate students in critical evaluation of science education articles and cognitive debates, and tests them on these skills. Our study examined the learning processes and outcomes of 51 graduate students, from three consecutive semesters. Findings indicated that the students’ higher order thinking skills were enhanced in terms of their ability to (a) pose complex questions, (b) present solid opinions, (c) introduce consistent arguments, and (d) demonstrate critical thinking.