Visualization of argumentation as shared activity

The use of argumentation maps in CSCL does not always provide students with the intended support for their collaboration. In this chapter we compare two argumentation maps from two research projects, both meant to support the collaborative writing of argumentative essays based on external sources. In the COSAR-project, the Diagram-tool with which students could specify positions, proarguments, con-arguments, supports, refutations and conclusions in a free graphical format to write a social studies essay, was highly appreciated by students and teachers, but did not result in better essays. In the CRoCiCL-project, the Debate-tool with which students could specify positions, proarguments, con-arguments, supports and refutations in a structured graphical format, meant to visualize the argumentative strength of the positions, resulted in better history essays. The difference in representational guidance between both tools might explain these differences in effects, with the Debate-tool stimulating students to attend to the justification of positions and their strengths

"Debating as a classroom tool for adapting learning outcomes to the European higher education area"

The creation of the European Higher Education Area has meant a number of significant changes to the educational structures of the university community. In particular, the new system of European credits has generated the need for innovation in the design of curricula and teaching methods. In this paper, we propose debating as a classroom tool that can help fulfill these objectives by promoting an active student role in learning. To demonstrate the potential of this tool, a classroom experiment was conducted in a bachelor’s degree course in Industrial Economics (Regulation and Competition), involving a case study in competition policy and incorporating the techniques of a conventional debate (presentation of standpoints, turns, right to reply and summing up). The experiment yielded gains in student attainment and positive assessments of the subject. In conclusion, the incorporation of debating activities helps students to acquire the skills, be they general or specific, required to graduate successfully in Economics.European Higher Education Area; Debating; Industrial Organization; Academic Success; European Credit Transfer System. JEL classification:A23, B4, I2.

Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments

Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to support students engaging in argumentation. This review first considers the range of functionalities incorporated within these online environments. The review then presents five categories of analytic frameworks focusing on (1) formal argumentation structure, (2) normative quality, (3) nature and function of contributions within the dialog, (4) epistemic nature of reasoning, and (5) patterns and trajectories of participant interaction. Example analytic frameworks from each category are presented in detail rich enough to illustrate their nature and structure. This rich detail is intended to facilitate researchers’ identification of possible frameworks to draw upon in developing or adopting analytic methods for their own work. Each framework is applied to a shared segment of student dialog to facilitate this illustration and comparison process. Synthetic discussions of each category consider the frameworks in light of the underlying theoretical perspectives on argumentation, pedagogical goals, and online environmental structures. Ultimately the review underscores the diversity of perspectives represented in this research, the importance of clearly specifying theoretical and environmental commitments throughout the process of developing or adopting an analytic framework, and the role of analytic frameworks in the future development of online learning environments for argumentation

Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice

In writing argumentative syntheses from multiple and contradictory sources, students must contrast and integrate different perspectives on a topic or issue. This complex task of source-based argumentation has been shown to be effective for learning, but it has also been shown to be quite challenging. Because of the challenges, educational interventions have been developed to facilitate performance through such means as explicit instruction of strategies and students’ engagement in collaborative writing. Whereas these interventions have been beneficial for many writers, some students continue to perform poorly. The present study builds on prior research into collaborative writing of source-based argumentative syntheses by focusing on these students who experience difficulty with this academic task. Undergraduate psychology students who had previously underperformed on the argumentative task were organized into 56 pairs to participate in one of four versions of an intervention program, which differed in terms of the extent of support provided. The most complete program included collaboration as well as explicit instruction in argumentative synthesis writing and in the collaboration process. Statistical analyses were carried out with two ANOVAs with planned comparisons as well as two mediation models. Results showed that the pairs of students who received this most complete program significantly improved the quality of their synthesis in two dimensions, argument identification and argument analysis. The quality of their performance exceeded the performance of students in the three other intervention programs. The combination of explicit instruction and practice in pairs had positive effects on argument identification; but, for argument integration, effectiveness could be attributed solely to the explicit instruction component of the intervention. The study contributes to prior research by showing how the components of an intervention can make differential contributions to its effectiveness for a particular group of studentsThe present study was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación State program oriented to the challenges of society (I + D + i) (PID2019-105250RB-I00

ARGUMENTATION-BASED COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ABCSCL): THE ROLE OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORTS

This paper investigates the role of instructional supports for argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL), a teaching approach that improves the quality of learning processes and outcomes. Relevant literature has been reviewed to identify the instructional supports in ABCSCL environments. A range of instructional supports in ABCSCL is proposed including scaffolding, scripting, and representational tools. Each of these instructional supports are discussed in detail. Furthermore, the extent to which and the way in which such instructional supports can be applied in ABCSCL environments are discussed. Finally, suggestions for future work and implications for the design of ABCSCL environments are provided.  Article visualizations

Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation

In recent years educators have become increasingly interested in using Internet and webbased applications for educational purposes. Such applications do not only offer advantages with regards to independency of time and place, but also of flexibility of information exchange. Information can be stored, presented and accessed in multiple formats (text, graphics, pictures, tables and figures, animations, simulations, interactive video, virtual reality etc.). In addition, communication between students and tutors can be facilitated by the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems. CMC systems are network-based computer systems offering opportunities for group communication. Examples are Internet relay chat, newsgroups, e-mail conferencing systems and virtual classrooms. CMC systems can support synchronous communication (same time, different place) as well as asynchronous communication (different time, different place). Currently, most CMC systems offer users text-based modes for communication only, due to the limitations in bandwidth1. Advanced technology will enhance access to applications that combine synchronous and asynchronous communication, digitalised text, video, sounds, graphics etc. on one platform (Collis, 1996). This research is aimed at academic students in social sciences who have to deal with complex, often ambiguous, ill-defined and not easily accessible knowledge, as well as with open-ended problems. To obtain insight and understanding in complex concepts or to solve open-ended problems, collaborative learning situations can be organised in which students are able to articulate and negotiate information, not only in relationship to fixed facts and figures but also to personal beliefs and values

Maximizing the Benefits of Collaborative Learning in the College Classroom

abstract: This study tested the effects of two kinds of cognitive, domain-based preparation tasks on learning outcomes after engaging in a collaborative activity with a partner. The collaborative learning method of interest was termed "preparing-to-interact," and is supported in theory by the Preparation for Future Learning (PFL) paradigm and the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive (ICAP) framework. The current work combined these two cognitive-based approaches to design collaborative learning activities that can serve as alternatives to existing methods, which carry limitations and challenges. The "preparing-to-interact" method avoids the need for training students in specific collaboration skills or guiding/scripting their dialogic behaviors, while providing the opportunity for students to acquire the necessary prior knowledge for maximizing their discussions towards learning. The study used a 2x2 experimental design, investigating the factors of Preparation (No Prep and Prep) and Type of Activity (Active and Constructive) on deep and shallow learning. The sample was community college students in introductory psychology classes; the domain tested was "memory," in particular, concepts related to the process of remembering/forgetting information. Results showed that Preparation was a significant factor affecting deep learning, while shallow learning was not affected differently by the interventions. Essentially, equalizing time-on-task and content across all conditions, time spent individually preparing by working on the task alone and then discussing the content with a partner produced deeper learning than engaging in the task jointly for the duration of the learning period. Type of Task was not a significant factor in learning outcomes, however, exploratory analyses showed evidence of Constructive-type behaviors leading to deeper learning of the content. Additionally, a novel method of multilevel analysis (MLA) was used to examine the data to account for the dependency between partners within dyads. This work showed that "preparing-to-interact" is a way to maximize the benefits of collaborative learning. When students are first cognitively prepared, they seem to make the most efficient use of discussion towards learning, engage more deeply in the content during learning, leading to deeper knowledge of the content. Additionally, in using MLA to account for subject nonindependency, this work introduces new questions about the validity of statistical analyses for dyadic data.Dissertation/ThesisPh.D. Educational Psychology 201

How exemplary teachers promote scientific reasoning and higher order thinking in primary science

There is an emerging interest in the development of STEM capabilities to drive Australia’s future economy and workforce. As a consequence, the focus on the teaching of higher order thinking and scientific reasoning has intensified. Despite these efforts, Australia’s level of achievement on international benchmarking tests has not improved. The aim of this PhD research was to investigate how exemplary teachers develop higher order thinking and scientific reasoning in primary science. The study drew on video data from the EQUALPRIME international research project, which explored quality primary science education in different cultures (ARC Discovery Project DP110101500). This qualitative research examined how Year 4 teachers in two contextually different schools scaffolded, supported and created opportunities for higher order thinking and scientific reasoning during the teaching of a physical science topic. Teacher beliefs, pedagogical strategies and contextual factors were viewed through the multiple theoretical lenses of social constructivism, sociocultural theory and social semiotic theory. The central data source was video which was subjected to micro-ethnographic analysis. These data were supplemented with interviews and classroom artefacts, and from these, case studies were compiled. Using a cross-case analysis and an interpretivist approach, assertions were drawn from which the research questions were answered. The study identified that the teaching of these skills was a complex multifaceted process influenced by the combination of teacher beliefs and contextual factors. Based on safe and supportive learning cultures, the teachers employed inquiry-based approaches and a combination of language- and body-based pedagogies that built students’ thinking and reasoning in parallel with conceptual development, across the unit. Outcomes of the research will contribute to new and deeper understanding of effective scaffolding, support and promotion of higher order thinking and reasoning in primary science which can inform enhancements to pre‐service and in‐service teacher professional learning

Effects of Teaching Argument to First-Year Community-College Students Using a Structural and Dialectical Approach

The purpose of this study was to measure to what extent an experimental method of teaching argument incorporating elements from both Toulmin’s (2004) structural approach and Walton’s (2013) dialectical approach effects first-year college students’ ability to write strong arguments. This experimental instruction used critical questioning as a strategy in building a strong argument, incorporating alternative viewpoints, and creating a dialogue between claims and counterclaims, backed logically by verifiable evidence from reliable sources. Using the Analytic Scoring Rubric of Argumentative Writing (ASRAW; Stapleton & Wu, 2015) that includes the argument elements of claims, data, counterclaim, counterclaim data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data, the efficacy of the experimental instruction method was evaluated by collecting and scoring students’ preand postoutlines of arguments on topics involving controversial issues and students\u27 argument research-paper outlines. Scores on these three sets of outlines in each class included in the study (Spring n=20 and Fall n=23 2020) were compared to investigate the efficacy of using the experimental instructional approach. The rubric analysis was based on outlines that incorporate the basic elements of a strong argument as defined above, both before and after this instructional method was employed. The instruction was designed to develop students’ understanding of bias in the context of building an argument by helping students learn to explore and integrate alternative viewpoints, to reflect on their own assumptions, to discover bias in sources, and ultimately to build strong arguments from reliable sources that take more than one perspective into account. The instruction consisted of an interactive lecture and pair and group work on a controversial issue in class. This study took place at a medium-sized community college in an “extended” 6- unit composition course designed for students needing more support than a traditional 3- or 4-unit first-year English Composition course. The student population of this community college and of this course was very diverse and representative of Northern California’s demographics, with many students being first- or second-generation immigrants, from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the first in their family to attend college, or a combination. Overall, based on the paired-sample t tests for the pre- and postoutline pair, the pre- and research-paper outline pair on the total scores and on the counter-argument and evidence and rebuttals and evidence scores for both Spring and Fall 2020 classes were statistically significant, except for post- and research-paper outlines for Fall 2022 for total, counter-argument and evidence, pre- and postoutlines, and post- and research-paper outlines for rebuttal and rebuttal evidence. Effect size, as measured by Cohen’s d, for pairs that were statistically significant were all large, ranging from 0.80 to 1.26 except for counter-argument and counter-argument evidence for pre- and postoutlines for the Spring 2020 class that were both medium, ranging from 0.58 to 0.65

Debating as a classroom tool for adapting learning outcomes to the European higher education area

The creation of the European Higher Education Area has meant a number of significant changes to the educational structures of the university community. In particular, the new system of European credits has generated the need for innovation in the design of curricula and teaching methods. In this paper, we propose debating as a classroom tool that can help fulfill these objectives by promoting an active student role in learning. To demonstrate the potential of this tool, a classroom experiment was conducted in a bachelor’s degree course in Industrial Economics -Regulation and Competition-, involving a case study in competition policy and incorporating the techniques of a conventional debate -presentation of standpoints, turns, right to reply and summing up-. The experiment yielded gains in student attainment and positive assessments of the subject. In conclusion, the incorporation of debating activities helps students to acquire the skills, be they general or specific, required to graduate successfully in Economics