Creative Solutions and their Evaluation: Comparing the Effects of Explanation and Argumentation Tasks on Student Reflections

Creative problem solving which results in novel and effective ideas or products is most advanced when learners can analyze, evaluate, and refine their ideas to improve creative solutions.  The purpose of this investigation was to examine creative problem solving performance in undergraduate students and determine the tasks that support critical self-evaluations of creative solutions by comparing alternative types of reflective tasks. Participants (n = 103) first provided demographic information and responded to individual difference measures (i.e., divergent thinking, need for cognition, and beliefs about creative outcomes) and then read a problem scenario in which they assumed the role of a high school teacher who was asked to design a creative college preparatory course.  Following, participants completed either an explanation reflective task or an argument based reflective task.  Finally, participants evaluated their proposed course by rating it on characteristics that describe the originality and effectiveness of creative solutions. Findings confirmed the role of divergent thinking as a positive predictor of the originality of a creative solution, whereas, need for cognition, and academic major were positive predictors of the effectiveness of a creative solution.  Participants rated their creative solutions differentially depending on their beliefs and the type of reflective task.  Those whose beliefs aligned better with conceptualizations of creative outcomes assessed more positively the originality and effectiveness of their solution.  The findings indicate that the argumentation task could potentially promote reflective and critical thinking about a creative solution as participants who completed the argumentation task evaluated their solution more conservatively

Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education

Dialogical argumentation practice contributes positively to argumentative writing skills. Specifically, deliberative dialogues are effective in promoting argument and counterargument integration in students' essays. However, the potential of dialogic activities may be increased if they are combined with instructional practices. The primary objective of this research is to compare the impact of four intervention programs, aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing from conflicting sources. The four programs resulted from the combination of two instructional components (Explicit Instruction through video modelling—EI, or a Procedural Guideline—G), while Deliberative Dialogues—DD—were a constant element. We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental study in which 186 Spanish third grade secondary school students (aged 14–15) participated. We evaluated the quality of the syntheses by examining the level of argumentative coverage (the total number of arguments included in the synthesis) and the level of integration (the type and frequency of the argumentative strategies used in the syntheses). The results showed that the effectiveness of the instructional methods varies according to the synthesis quality indicator. Explicit instruction, in combination with deliberative dialogues, was especially helpful in improving the level of integration of syntheses. The procedural guideline, in combination with deliberative dialogues, contributed significantly to the coverage of arguments. The combination of these two elements did not favor the writing of synthesis as expected, probably due to the conditions in which the intervention was carried out. The findings of this study revealed that the coverage of arguments and integration processes are of different nature, follow different learning paths and require different instructional processes.pre-print875 K

Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) enrich online discussions

With online Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs), students compose arguments on both sides of a controversial issue and then develop an integrated conclusion. In this study, students used AVDs prior to composing discussion notes, and - at the end of each discussion - jointly created a group AVD. AVDs significantly enhanced the number of arguments/counterarguments and compromises in students\u27 discussion notes, and promoted opinion change. However, for AVDs to be effective, students also needed instruction on evaluating argument strength

Making Use of the Dual Functions of Evidence in Adolescents' Argumentation

Changing demands of the workplace require that schools teach students to think critically. The new Common Core State Standards stress that to prepare for college and careers, students must be capable of engaging in skilled evidence-based argumentation, which entails use of evidence to support one's own claims and to weaken arguments of the opposing position. In Study 1, middle-school students who had participated in a one or two-year curriculum designed to develop argumentation skills were recruited. Previous use of the curriculum had shown it effective in developing students' skills in supporting arguments with evidence. However, they displayed only limited use of evidence to address and weaken opponents' arguments, a finding replicated in the present study. A prompt was therefore instituted, explicitly instructing them to undertake this goal in a post-intervention essay assessment. This simple instruction enhanced middle school students' use of evidence-based arguments to weaken an opposing claim, indicating that the skill to do so was within their competence but they possibly were insufficiently aware of its relevance to use it without prompting. Study 2 was undertaken to determine whether a novice group of middle schoolers similarly needed only a prompt to display this skill critical to argumentive reasoning. They were provided with only minimal experience in discourse with peers on the same social issue used in Study 1 (whether cigarette sales should be banned), following which they were asked to write individual argumentive essays, first without any prompt and then with the prompt instructing them to attempt to weaken an opponent's position. In this group, essays following the prompt showed no greater use of arguments to weaken, compared to essays with no such instruction. Nor was there an effect of whether students' prior dialogs had been with agreeing or disagreeing peers. These results indicate that the weaknesses of Study 2 participants, in understanding the objectives of argumentation and in executing the strategies to achieve these objectives, were more fundamental and not ones remediable by a simple prompt. Overall, the results of both studies thus point to the need for extended engagement and guided practice in order for students to master the skills of argument

Teaching academic writing to Iraqi undergraduate students: An investigation into the effectiveness of a genre-process approach

A modified integrated process-genre approach (MIM) was implemented with EFL undergraduate students in Iraq. Some students subject to the MIM were better able to construct structurally complex and reasonably-grounded arguments and to employ a wider range of informal reasoning patterns group.Combining the merits of both the process and genre approaches has the potential to develop a more coherent model of writing by taking into account cognitive and social demands

The Effect of Graphic Organizers and Instructional Scaffolding on Argumentative Writing Performance Among TESL Undergraduates

The present study investigated the effect of graphic organizers and instructional scaffolding on argumentative writing performance among TESL undergraduates. The study employed a quasi-experimental research using the pre-test and post-test design involving 90 TESL undergraduates being placed equally in three different groups underwent lessons on argumentative essay writing using different delivery modes, modes comprising of four stages of learning for a duration of four weeks. During the intervention period, three small groups of TESL undergraduates from the GOIS and GONI delivery modes were video-recorded to investigate on how they communicate in their groups. After the intervention, a semi-structured interview was carried out. A total of 9 students (GOIS, n=3; GONI, n=3; NGNI, n=3) were interviewed and the interviews were audio-recorded. The one-way ANCOVA was used to analyse the argumentative writing performance among the TESL undergraduates. The percentages were used to compare the overall percentages of Comm between the GOIS and GONI delivery modes while the qualitative data from the semi-structured interview of the three delivery modes were analysed using the constant comparative approach. Results showed that the group which underwent the GOIS delivery mode performed significantly better in the overall argumentative essay writing performance (p<.05) compared to their counterparts in the GONI and NGNI delivery modes. Additionally, in terms of the overall frequency of conjunctions and overall frequency of argumentative elements, the results indicated that both the GOIS and GONI groups performed significantly better (p<.05) than the NGNI group. In terms of overall percentages of , the GONI group outperformed the GOIS group. The findings from the semi-structured interview revealed that the GOIS group experienced learning better compared to the GONI and NGNI groups. The research confirmed that the GOIS and GONI delivery modes are effective in enhancing argumentative writing performance among TESL undergraduates. In line with this, the research ends with a recommendation for educators to adopt these delivery modes in t argumentative writing skills are enhanced. (Abstract by Author