Scaffolding argumentation in intact class: Integrating technology and pedagogy

This paper reports on the use of a set of online tools to scaffold the argumentation skills of students enrolled in Liberal Study (LS). The tools, collectively known as OASIS, were designed to support the online reading, writing, and evaluating activities of students engaged in fulfilling the learning objectives of the course. OASIS was designed to be integrated into the teaching and learning activities of the course. Two classes of students used the tools over an entire school year. We examined how the students used the tools to read and write arguments and how this affected their argumentation skills. The data collected included the number and types of tags students assigned to text passages and the quality of the arguments they produced in their written essays. Students' argumentation skills were found to be related to the number of tags they defined. OASIS was found to be effective in scaffolding students' argumentation skills. However, limitations were identified during task design, especially the design of collaborative peer evaluation tasks.

[1]  Ruth E. Knudson.  Effects of Instructional Strategies, Grade, and Sex on Students’ Persuasive Writing , 1991 .

[2]  Grady Venville,et al.  The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science , 2010 .

[3]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning , 2000 .

[4]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  Argument and conceptual engagement , 2003 .

[5]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[6]  D. Kuhn.  Education for Thinking , 1986, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[7]  D. Kuhn,et al.  What Constitutes Skilled Argumentation and How Does it Develop , 2009 .

[8]  Liping Deng,et al.  Examining students' use of online annotation tools in support of argumentative reading , 2013 .

[9]  Gijsbert Erkens,et al.  Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Support Students' Argumentation , 2007 .

[10]  N. Law,et al.  Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback , 2011, Instructional Science.

[11]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[12]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[13]  M. Linn,et al.  Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE , 2000 .

[14]  Human reasoning and argumentation: the probabilistic approach , 2008 .

[15]  Joanna Wolfe.  Annotation Technologies: A Software and Research Review. , 2002 .

[16]  Pei-Luen Patrick Rau,et al.  Developing web annotation tools for learners and instructors , 2004, Interact. Comput..

[17]  M. Anne Britt,et al.  Improving Students' Evaluation of Informal Arguments , 2009, Journal of experimental education.

[18]  D. Leu,et al.  The New Literacies of Online Reading Comprehension: Expanding the Literacy and Learning Curriculum , 2011, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.

[19]  Jerry E. B. Andriessen,et al.  Argumentation in Higher Education: Examples of Actual Practices with Argumentation Tools , 2009 .

[20]  Gellof Kanselaar,et al.  Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[21]  Michael Ranney,et al.  Toward an Integration of the Social and the Scientific: Observing, Modeling, and Promoting the Explanatory Coherence of Reasoning , 2003 .

[22]  Zhijie Xu,et al.  Online annotation - Research and practices , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[23]  D. Kuhn.  THE SKILLS OF ARGUMENT , 2008, Education for Thinking.

[24]  Shirley Simon,et al.  Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science , 2004 .

[25]  Sibel Erduran,et al.  Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms , 2007 .

[26]  S. Chung.  Cognitive and Social Factors Affecting the Use of Wikipedia and Information Seeking / Les facteurs cognitifs et sociaux déterminant l'utilisation de Wikipedia et la recherche d'information , 2012 .

[27]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation , 2006 .

[28]  Baruch B. Schwarz,et al.  The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools , 2005, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[29]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments , 2007 .

[30]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry , 2001 .

[31]  D. Suthers,et al.  “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry , 2002 .

[32]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Learning to Write: Computer Support for a Cooperative Process: Christine M. Neuwirth and Patricia G. Wojahn , 2012 .

[33]  Jan-Ola Östman,et al.  Handbook of Pragmatics , 2018, Handbook of Pragmatics.

[34]  Liping Deng,et al.  Reading Actively Online: An Exploratory Investigation of Online Annotation Tools for Inquiry Learning. , 2012 .

[35]  S. Erduran,et al.  TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse , 2004 .

[36]  Mei-Hung Chiu,et al.  Lakatos’ Scientific Research Programmes as a Framework for Analysing Informal Argumentation about Socio‐scientific Issues , 2008 .

[37]  N. Mercer.  Developing Argumentation: Lessons Learned in the Primary School , 2009 .

[38]  J. Osborne,et al.  Teaching and Learning Science as Argument , 2010 .

[39]  Petri Nokelainen,et al.  A shared document-based annotation tool to support learner-centred collaborative learning , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[40]  Fadi P. Deek,et al.  Problem-Based Learning and Problem-Solving Tools: Synthesis and Direction for Distributed Education Environments , 2002 .

[41]  Jerry Andriessen,et al.  Representational Tools in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation-Based Learning: How Dyads Work With Constructed and Inspected Argumentative Diagrams , 2007 .

[42]  Nancy Law,et al.  Understanding collaborative learning behavior from Moodle log data , 2012, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[43]  D. Suthers.  Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. , 2003 .

[44]  Yu-Fen Yang,et al.  A reciprocal peer review system to support college students' writing , 2011, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[45]  Stephen J. Read,et al.  Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning and Social Behavior , 2014 .

[46]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  The Structure of Discussions that Promote Reasoning , 1998, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[47]  Christopher Andersen,et al.  Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation , 2007 .

[48]  William A. Prothero,et al.  Analysis of Lines of Reasoning in Written Argumentation , 2007 .

[49]  Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont,et al.  Psychosocial Processes in Argumentation , 2009 .

[50]  Päivi Häkkinen,et al.  Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[51]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  Arguing on the computer , 2005, CSCL.

[52]  Yair Neuman,et al.  Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity , 2003 .

[53]  J. F. Voss,et al.  Who Reasons Well? Two Studies of Informal Reasoning Among Children of Different Grade, Ability, and Knowledge Levels , 1996 .

[54]  Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont,et al.  Argumentation and Education , 2009 .

[55]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..