Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues

Using multiple representations and argumentation are two fundamental processes in science. With the advancements of information communication technologies, these two processes are blended more so than ever before. However, little is known about how these two processes interact with each other in student learning. Hence, we conducted a design-based study in order to distill the relationship between these two processes. Specifically, we designed a learning unit on nuclear energy and implemented it with a group of preservice middle school teachers. The participants used a web-based knowledge organization platform that incorporated three representational modes: textual, concept map, and pictorial. The participants organized their knowledge on nuclear energy by searching, sorting, clustering information through the use of these representational modes and argued about the nuclear energy issue. We found that the use of multiple representations and argumentation interacted with each other in a complex way. Based on our findings, we argue that the complexity can be unfolded in two aspects: (a) the use of multiple representations mediates argumentation in different forms and for different purposes; (b) the type of argumentation that leads to refinement of the use of multiple representations is often non-mediated and drawn from personal experience.     

Scaffolding computer-mediated discussion to enhance moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers

This study investigated the effect of scaffolding computer-mediated discussions to improve moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers. Participants of this study were 76 teaching education students at a Turkish university. They were divided into three groups: (1) a computer-supported argumentation group; (2) a computer-mediated discussion group; and (3) a control group. Participants in the computer-supported argumentation group were instructed in argumentation, and were provided with note starters and graphical argumentation tools. The computer-mediated discussion group, however, was engaged in unstructured interaction on the Moodle forum, a free popular learning management system having a threaded discussion forum. The control group did not receive any instruction and neither did they participate in any discussions. As for the results, the computer-supported argumentation group outperformed the control group, but not the computer-mediated discussion group on DIT score and argumentation quality. Thus, it was concluded that both giving instruction on argumentation and appropriately designing the interfaces of computer-mediated discussion environments can enhance argumentation quality in students’ writings and also their moral reasoning.     

Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors

The study investigated the relationship of high school students' understandings about nature of science (NOS) aspects and their argumentation skills in relation to two controversial socioscientific issues. The study was conducted in five schools selected from different geographical areas in Beirut, Lebanon. Participants were 219 grade 11 students. Students in all the schools were administered a survey that consisted of two scenarios that addressed the controversial socioscientific issues about genetically modified food and water fluoridation. The two scenarios were followed by questions relating to argumentation and NOS. The study used a mixed methods approach where quantitative and qualitative measures were employed. Analysis involved participants' views of the target NOS aspects (subjective, tentative, and empirical) and their argumentation components (argument, counterargument, and rebuttal). The Pearson analyses showed strong correlations between the counterargument, compared to argument and rebuttal, and the three NOS aspects. Further, the chi‐square analyses showed significant differences in participants' argumentation skills and NOS understandings between the two scenarios. Qualitative data from questionnaires and interviews further confirmed these findings. Two central implications for the teaching of NOS and argumentation skills were discussed in terms of highlighting the role of counterarguments and considering contextual factors that involve issue exposure and familiarity, prior content knowledge, and personal relevance. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 489–514, 2012     

The right to argue: teaching and assessing everyday argumentation skills

Abstract

Even though there is wide agreement on the importance of argumentation in modern societies, only a minority of students in secondary and postsecondary education receive direct and explicit instruction in argumentation. The present study describes the design and results of a test that was used to measure everyday argumentation skills of 186 undergraduate students in Bogotá (Colombia), before and after they completed a one-semester course in logic with emphasis in argumentation. Given that the students came from a variety of academic and socioeconomic backgrounds, this sample allowed us to estimate the potential influence of student-related characteristics on the effectiveness of instruction. On average, students showed significant improvement (d = 0.62), independently of their academic and socioeconomic characteristics. This suggests that receiving this kind of instruction can be beneficial for a wide range of students.     

Affordances and Constraints of Using the Socio-Political Debate for Authentic Summative Assessment

This article reports from an empirical study on the affordances and constraints for using staged socio-political debates for authentic summative assessment of scientific literacy. The article focuses on conditions for student participation and what purposes emerge in student interaction in a socio-political debate. As part of the research project, a socio-political debate was designed for assessing student competences of scientific literacy in classroom practices. The debate centred on a fictive case about a lake where a decline in the yield of fish had been established. The students were assigned the task of participating in the debate from appointed roles as different stakeholders. Data were collected with video recordings of the enacted student debates. Student participation was analysed with the theoretical framework of communities of practice. The results show that multiple conflicting purposes of the socio-political debate as an assessment task emerged. The emergent purposes were (1) putting scientific knowledge on display versus staying true to one's role, (2) putting scientific knowledge on display versus expressing social responsibility, (3) putting scientific knowledge on display versus winning the debate, and (4) using sources tactically versus using sources critically. As these purposes emerged in classroom practice, tensions between different ways of enacting participation in the debates became manifest. Based on these findings, this article discusses the affordances and constraints for using a socio-political debate for classroom-based assessment of scientific literacy and argumentation in terms of validity, reliability and affordability.     

Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts

ABSTRACT

The present study investigated the effects of online argumentation scaffolding on students’ argumentation involving hypothetical and theoretical biological concepts. Two types of scaffolding were developed in order to improve student argumentation: continuous scaffolding and withdraw scaffolding. A quasi-experimental design was used with four 8th-grade classes comprising a total of 124 students. Two classes (63 students) were assigned into the continuous scaffolding group, while the other two (61 students) were assigned into the withdraw scaffolding group. All the students participated in online argumentation regarding four units, including two hypothetical concepts and two theoretical concepts. Both online learning process and scientific argumentation assessment results indicated that the continuous scaffolding group performed significantly better in terms of the quality and quantity of argumentation than the withdraw scaffolding group with regard to the hypothetical biology concepts, particularly in generating rebuttal arguments. In addition, the results also showed that both the continuous group and withdraw group students had better argumentation performance with regard to the hypothetical biology concepts than the theoretical biology concepts. Taken together, the study results suggest that learning argumentation through theoretical biology concepts is more difficult than doing so through hypothetical biology concepts.     

曹植论体文与建安政治学术之关系

建安之杰曹植,诗、赋、表成就斐然,论亦极有影响。他的论体文在其创作中占重要地位,充分反映了建安时期政治学术风气之变化,且内容多与政治紧密相关,风格则反映了其时通脱任性、辞采华美的文风。     

稻草人谬误的性质与类型探析

虽然,稻草人谬误是生活中最常见的谬误之一,但是,一直以来国内外均缺乏深入的研究。文章借助哈贝马斯的交往理论、格赖斯的合作原则、利奇的礼貌原则等理论和方法,揭示出稻草人谬误的四个重要性质:虚假性、弱相关性、强加性以及利己性,并给出了相应的定义与结构,从而回答了“什么是稻草人谬误”这一核心问题。在此基础上,深入地探讨并甄别了“扭曲”“捏造”和“选择”这三种主要的稻草人谬误,以促成快速准确地识别并反驳谬误,最终为达成正确思维与有效交际的理想目标做出积极努力。