The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to explore how seventh graders in a suburban school in the United States developed argumentation skills and science knowledge in a project-based learning environment that incorporated a graph-oriented, computer-assisted application. A total of 54 students three classes comprised this treatment condition and were engaged in a project-based learning environment that incorporated a graph-oriented, computer-assisted application, whereas a total of 57 students three classes comprised the control condition and were engaged in a project-based learning environment without this graph-oriented, computer-assisted application. Verbal collaborative argumentation was recorded and the students' post essays were collected. A random effects analysis of variance ANOVA was conducted and a significant difference in science knowledge about alternative energies between conditions was observed. A multivariate analysis of variance MANOVA was conducted and there was a significant difference in counterargument and rebuttal skills between conditions. A qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the graph-oriented, computer-assisted application supported students' development of argumentation skills and affected the quality of collaborative argumentation. The difference in argumentation structure and quality of argumentation between conditions might explain a difference in science knowledge as well counterargument and rebuttal skills argumentation between both conditions. This study concluded that a project-based learning environment incorporating a graph-oriented, computer-assisted application was effective in improving students' science knowledge and developing their scientific argumentation skills.

[1]  F. Paas,et al.  A Cognitive Load Approach to Collaborative Learning: United Brains for Complex Tasks , 2009 .

[2]  E. Nussbaum,et al.  Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education , 2011 .

[3]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Assessment of (Computer-Supported) Collaborative Learning , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[4]  Kalypso Iordanou,et al.  Developing Argument Skills Across Scientific and Social Domains , 2010 .

[5]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Arguing on the computer: a microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. , 2008, Child development.

[6]  Mercè Garcia-Milà,et al.  What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education , 2013 .

[7]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making , 2012 .

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

[9]  Anna Sfard,et al.  Guest EditorialLearning discourse:Sociocultural approaches to research inmathematics education , 2001 .

[10]  D. Kuhn.  Science as argument : Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking , 1993 .

[11]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking , 2011, Psychological science.

[12]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions , 2008 .

[13]  David G. Moursund,et al.  Project-based learning using information technology , 1999 .

[14]  J. Osborne,et al.  Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue , 2013 .

[15]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Constructing Causal Diagrams to Learn Deliberation , 2009, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[16]  E. Eames,et al.  Dewey on Education , 1961, History of Education Quarterly.

[17]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines , 2010 .

[18]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  The development of argument skills. , 2003, Child development.

[19]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-year Intervention Study , 2014 .

[20]  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..

[21]  D. Kuhn,et al.  What Needs to Develop in the Development of Inquiry Skills? , 2008 .

[22]  Carita Kiili,et al.  Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading , 2013, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[23]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning , 2011 .

[24]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  How to improve collaborative learning with video tools in the classroom? Social vs. cognitive guidance for student teams , 2012, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[25]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving , 2002 .

[26]  Ian Stewart,et al.  An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments , 2012, Metacognition and Learning.

[27]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  The Development of Argumentive Discourse Skill , 2001 .

[28]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[29]  B. Reiser,et al.  Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners , 2009 .

[30]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions , 2012 .

[31]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not) , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[32]  G. J. Kelly,et al.  Student's interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups , 1996 .

[33]  L. Yore,et al.  Toward Convergence of Critical Thinking, Metacognition, and Reflection: Illustrations from Natural and Social Sciences, Teacher Education, and Classroom Practice , 2012 .

[34]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Computers as cognitive tools: Learningwith technology, notfrom technology , 1995, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[35]  Julia Gil,et al.  Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: the effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. , 2012, The British journal of educational psychology.

[36]  Niels Pinkwart,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning DOI 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art , 2009 .

[37]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  Teaching and learning science as argument , 2010 .

[38]  Andreas Ryve,et al.  Discourse Research in Mathematics Education: A Critical Evaluation of 108 Journal Articles. , 2011 .

[39]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Computers As Cognitive Tools , 2020 .

[40]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Initial Structuring of Online Discussions to Improve Learning and Argumentation: Incorporating Students’ Own Explanations as Seed Comments Versus an Augmented-Preset Approach to Seeding Discussions , 2009 .

[41]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes , 2003 .

[42]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  Quality, Evolution, and Positional Change of University Students’ Argumentation Patterns About Organic Agriculture During an Argument–Critique–Argument Experience , 2013 .

[43]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Beyond Amplification: Using the Computer To Reorganize Mental Functioning. Technical Report No. 38. , 1985 .

[44]  Amanda Crowell.  Assessment of a Three-Year Argument Skill Development Curriculum , 2011 .

[45]  Krista Glazewski,et al.  Problem-based learning and argumentation: testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments , 2011 .

[46]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument , 2001 .

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

[48]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning , 2008, ICLS.

[49]  S. Dinos,et al.  Investigating the Impact of Mediated Learning Experiences on Cooperative Peer Communication during Group Initiatives , 2010 .

[50]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Discourse Patterns During Children's Collaborative Online Discussions , 2007 .

[51]  Per-Olof Wickman,et al.  Student Engagement with Artefacts and Scientific Ideas in a Laboratory and a Concept-Mapping Activity , 2013 .

[52]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  Why Argue? Developing Understanding of the Purposes and Values of Argumentive Discourse , 2010 .

[53]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .