Evidence-Based Dialogue Maps as a research tool to evaluate the quality of school pupils’ scientific argumentation

This pilot study focuses on the potential of Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping as a participatory action research tool to investigate young teenagers’ scientific argumentation. Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping is a technique for representing graphically an argumentative dialogue through Questions, Ideas, Pros, Cons and Data. Our research objective is to better understand the usage of Compendium, a Dialogue Mapping software tool, as both (1) a learning strategy to scaffold school pupils’ argumentation and (2) as a method to investigate the quality of their argumentative essays. The participants were a science teacher-researcher, a knowledge mapping researcher and 20 pupils, 12-13 years old, in a summer science course for “gifted and talented” children in the UK. This study draws on multiple data sources: discussion forum, science teacher-researcher’s and pupils’ Dialogue Maps, pupil essays, and reflective comments about the uses of mapping for writing. Through qualitative analysis of two case studies, we examine the role of Evidence-based Dialogue Maps as a mediating tool in scientific reasoning: as conceptual bridges for linking and making knowledge intelligible; as support for the linearisation task of generating a coherent document outline; as a reflective aid to rethinking reasoning in response to teacher feedback; and as a visual language for making arguments tangible via cartographic conventions

Scaffolding School Pupils’ Scientific Argumentation with Evidence-Based Dialogue Maps

This chapter reports pilot work investigating the potential of Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping to scaffold young teenagers’ scientific argumentation. Our research objective is to better understand pupils’ usage of dialogue maps created in Compendium to write scientific ex-planations. The participants were 20 pupils, 12-13 years old, in a summer science course for “gifted and talented” children in the UK. Through qualitative analysis of three case studies, we investigate the value of dialogue mapping as a mediating tool in the scientific reasoning process during a set of learning activities. These activities were published in an online learning envi-ronment to foster collaborative learning. Pupils mapped their discussions in pairs, shared maps via the online forum and in plenary discussions, and wrote essays based on their dialogue maps. This study draws on these multiple data sources: pupils’ maps in Compendium, writings in science and reflective comments about the uses of mapping for writing. Our analysis highlights the diversity of ways, both successful and unsuccessful, in which dialogue mapping was used by these young teenagers

A study on digital-based argumentative writing in English of South Korean university students

In higher education in South Korea, English proficiency has been specifically emphasised by the government (Kang, 2015; Kang, 2018; Kim, 2017; Shim & Park, 2008; Williams, 2015). However, writing skills have had little attention in education settings, including higher education institutions (Kim, 2018; Shin, 2018; Park, 2020; Shin & Hyun, 2020; Yu, 2019), despite a series of educational reforms. Students in South Korean higher education are now facing practical and specific needs for argumentative writing in English (Shim, 2016; Shin, 2018). However, the overall context of English education does not fully reflect their real needs (Kim, 2018; Kwon, 2012; Kwak, 2017; Shim, 2016). South Korean universities require their students to reach a specific level at one of the English proficiency tests (Kim, 2018; Ma, 2018; Shim, 2016), most of which include at least one argumentative writing task. Additionally, the certificate of English proficiency test is widely used as the basic skills reference for their career (Kim, 2018). In the meantime, writing proficiency has increasingly gained its own weight in English language tests (Kim, 2018; Ma, 2018; Shin, 2018), adding to the burden on students to develop their writing proficiency (Kim, 2018; Ma, 2018). Despite students’ need for improvement in English writing proficiency, including English argumentative writing, writing courses given by South Korean higher education institutions are still rare (Kim, 2018; Ma, 2018; Shin, 2018; Yu, 2019) and often allow little room for reviewing tasks (Kim, 2018; Ma, 2018; Shim, 2018), even though they commonly use a process-based approach. Furthermore, in immediate response to their needs, higher education institutions in both the public and private sectors have maintained narrow academic attention, focusing on test specific writing skills (Kim, 2018; Shin, 2018). All these situations have resulted in a lack of educational opportunities for students to receive theoretically and systematically well designed instruction in developing their argumentation skills (Shin, 2018). For South Korean students learning English as a foreign language (EFL), argumentative writing in English includes acquiring an understanding of and the skills for both critical thinking and English-specific conventions for the target genre of writing (Ahn & Park, 2019; Choi, 2008; Shim, 2016). To promote a fast and concrete understanding of argumentation in English, representative organisational structures are often used in instructional practices. While many of the courses for English argumentative writing in South Korea are limited to the delivery of instructions, or creating a rough claim-evidence link in a paragraph, this simple formula-based approach may have a limited influence on the level of argumentation that university students in South Korea are able to develop (Choi, 2008). To enhance students’ in-depth knowledge of and skills for making arguments in English, a systematic and effective instructional model is necessary, targeting argumentation development and investigated by rigorous research. However, with a traditionally narrow focus on writing in English education, studies on English writing itself, including argumentative writing, have been limited, despite the importance of this area. As a way of introducing systematically presented models into instruction in English argumentative writing, the Toulmin model can be an effective option. It suggests a detailed, sequenced, intensively explained process for the logical framework for writing in English. In this sense, it is necessary to explore how to modify and apply Toulmin’s components into the courses for English argumentative writing in South Korean higher education. In addition to the practical applicability of the Toulmin model, it is necessary to consider the common context in which writing courses in South Korean higher education institutions provide some phases for drafting and revision/editing, which are broadly anchored in the process-based writing approach. Considering the practical challenge caused by a lack of time for drafting in writing courses (Kim, 2018; Ma, 2018; Shim, 2018), online based classes can be a better option, enabling more flexibility in time and space. Even before the Covid-19 outbreak, diverse synchronous and asynchronous digital writing environments have been utilised in the field of higher education in South Korea to enhance students’ writing performance and also increase the connectivity between learners and teachers. However, the digital environments for English writing in South Korea are still based on a lack of rigour in terms of research evidence, which signals the need for more research into how best to develop digital writing platforms and incorporate necessary support for users. With the two main areas of English argumentative writing and digital learning environments for writing combined, this study explores the effectiveness of a digital-based argumentative writing course in South Korea, as well as the pedagogical implications. To investigate the effects of digital course development for instruction in English argumentative writing for university students in South Korea and derive insights in digital course design for English argumentative writing for university students in South Korea, this study used a sequential mixed-methods design: quantitative phase followed by qualitative phase for collection and analysis of data sets. The English argumentative writing course in this study applies the Toulmin model (1958; 2003) as a specific teaching strategy, with a cycle of drafting and exchanging feedback using the process-based writing approach. To provide the online group with a digital-based collaborative writing1 environment for feedback exchanges, the writing platform, Scholar, was used. In this study, 43 undergraduate students in South Korea participated in a writing course for one semester, 22 participants in a control group (offline course) and 21 participants in an intervention group (online course). They participated in pre- and post-writing tests, two sessions of interviews, and narrative writing for reflection. Also, ten university teaching staff and e-developers took part in one individual interview session each, to provide professional views on the online instructional design that is implemented in the English argumentative writing of this study. In terms of the effectiveness of the online writing course for developing argumentation skills in English, the findings from the quantitative analysis show both online and offline courses had a positive impact on improvement and retention. Although the statistical results present no indication that the online class had higher learning gains than the offline group by any significant difference, this result is supported by the findings from the qualitative analysis, which indicates that the online group performed better in terms of the quality and the quantity of peer feedback. In addition, the findings from the qualitative analysis suggest that the writing course in this study helped students to develop their knowledge and sensitivity in argumentation in English, and the online course facilitated enhanced engagement in feedback tasks. Moreover, despite recognising the value of face-to-face interaction for English argumentative writing, the qualitative findings suggest that the anonymity and convenience of the online writing course in this study encouraged participation in feedback. Finally, the findings from teaching staff and e-developer interviews reveal generally positive perceptions of and evaluations of the usefulness and applicability of the Toulmin model for English argumentation development, and the collaborative writing environment of Scholar. ( 1. In this study, the term, ‘collaborative writing,’ means individual student’s essay writing supported by external feedback, including peer and teacher feedback, not co-authorship in writing one shared essay together.

XIP Dashboard: visual analytics from automated rhetorical parsing of scientific metadiscourse

A key competency that we seek to build in learners is a critical mind, i.e. ability to engage with the ideas in the literature, and to identify when significant claims are being made in articles. The ability to decode such moves in texts is essential, as is the ability to make such moves in one’s own writing. Computational techniques for extracting them are becoming available, using Natural Language Processing (NLP) tuned to recognize the rhetorical signals that authors use when making a significant scholarly move. After reviewing related NLP work, we introduce the Xerox Incremental Parser (XIP), note previous work to render its output, and then motivate the design of the XIP Dashboard, a set of visual analytics modules built on XIP output, using the LAK/EDM open dataset as a test corpus. We report preliminary user reactions to a paper prototype of such a novel dashboard, describe the visualizations implemented to date, and present user scenarios for learners, educators and researchers. We conclude with a summary of ongoing design refinements, potential platform integrations, and questions that need to be investigated through end-user evaluations

Representational transformations : using maps to write essays

This research was supported by NSERC (The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) RGPIN-2020-04401 and EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) EP/T518062/1.Essay-writing is a complex, cognitively demanding activity. Essay-writers must synthesise source texts and original ideas into a textual essay. Previous work found that writers produce better essays when they create effective intermediate representations. Diagrams, such as concept maps and argument maps, are particularly effective. However, there is insufficient knowledge about how people use these intermediate representations in their essay-writing workflow. Understanding these processes is critical to inform the design of tools to support workflows incorporating intermediate representations. We present the findings of a study, in which 20 students planned and wrote essays. Participants used a tool that we developed, Write Reason, which combines a free-form mapping interface with an essay-writing interface. This let us observe the types of intermediate representations participants built, and crucially, the process of how they used and moved between them. The key insight is that much of the important cognitive processing did not happen within a single representation, but instead in the processes that moved between multiple representations. We label these processes `representational transformations'. Our analysis characterises key properties of these transformations: cardinality, explicitness, and change in representation type. We also discuss research questions surfaced by the focus on transformations, and implications for tool designers.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Advances in Writing Analytics: Mapping the state of the field

Writing analytics as a field is growing in terms of the tools and technologies developed to support student writing, methods to collect and analyze writing data, and the embedding of tools in pedagogical contexts to make them relevant for learning. This workshop will facilitate discussion on recent writing analytics research by researchers, writing tool developers, theorists and practitioners to map the current state of the field, identify issues and develop future directions for advances in writing analytics

The Effect of Using Tumblr on the EFL Students’ Ability in Writing Argumentative Essays

Nowadays, many information and communication technology (ICT) tools have been integrated in teaching and learning activities. In English language teaching (ELT), various ICT tools, especially those which belong to Social Networking Site (SNS) or social media, have been used as media to teach English language skills. One of these social media is Tumblr which has a mixture of characteristics of Blog, Instagram, and Facebook. This research aimed to examine whether the use of Tumblr improves EFL student’ ability in writing argumentative essays. It involved 36 students of undergraduate program in English Department of Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. The result showed that there is a significant improvement in students’ ability in writing after being taught by using Tumblr. This leads to the conclusion that Tumblr can be used effectively to help students improve their ability in writing argumentative essays.

VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping

In argumentative writing, writers must brainstorm hierarchical writing goals, ensure the persuasiveness of their arguments, and revise and organize their plans through drafting. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made interactive text generation through a chat interface (e.g., ChatGPT) possible. However, this approach often neglects implicit writing context and user intent, lacks support for user control and autonomy, and provides limited assistance for sensemaking and revising writing plans. To address these challenges, we introduce VISAR, an AI-enabled writing assistant system designed to help writers brainstorm and revise hierarchical goals within their writing context, organize argument structures through synchronized text editing and visual programming, and enhance persuasiveness with argumentation spark recommendations. VISAR allows users to explore, experiment with, and validate their writing plans using automatic draft prototyping. A controlled lab study confirmed the usability and effectiveness of VISAR in facilitating the argumentative writing planning process.Comment: 30 pages, published in UIST'2

The implementation of dialogue-based pedagogy to improve written argumentation amongst secondary school students in Malaysia

The purpose of this study is to find solutions on how to improve secondary school students’ persuasive argumentative English essay writing. The participants of this study are groups of ESL students aged 13 and 17 who live and study in a sub-urban area in Malaysia. All students and teachers converse amongst themselves using the Malay language on a daily basis while English language is merely used during classroom interaction time. Not only do they have very little opportunity to communicate using English language in their daily lives and for academic purposes, they also have limited opportunity to learn how to argue persuasively in their English classroom. Thus, they have difficulties in writing two-sided argumentative essays in English. The teaching-to-the-test culture has taken its toll on students’ writing performance when writing argumentative essays. In order to help students to score well in examination, teachers often overlook the need to teach critical thinking skills for the English subject. They focus solely on writing narrative essays as these essays require less critical thinking skill from the students. The Design-Based Research is employed to solve this problem of writing persuasive argumentative essays. Based on the pre-intervention essays written by the participants, it is believed that their difficulties are because of two major factors; insufficient English language skills and no exposure to persuasive argumentation skills. The initial design framework asserts that students should improve their persuasive argumentative essay writing if they are initially exposed to face-to-face group argumentation. However, the findings from the exploratory study revealed that face-to-face group argumentation is unmanageable in the context studied. Hence, an online learning intervention was considered to support secondary school students to improve their written argument. It was developed underpinned by design principles based on Exploratory Talk to achieve persuasive argumentation. The prototype online intervention was tested and developed through a series of iterations. Findings from Iteration 1 show that only a small number of students manage to write two-sided essays because most of them have an extreme attitude when writing about an issue and display a lack of positive transfer from group to individual argumentation. Prior to Iteration 2, the prototype intervention was adapted to tackle the extreme attitude and negative transfer issues by highlighting five elements: face-to-face classroom practice, focus more on three main ground rules, argument game, role of teachers during group argumentation and the use of argument map during the post-intervention essay writing. The findings demonstrate that all students in the second iteration wrote argumentative essays which are more persuasive. The final design framework developed in this study suggests a design framework that could be used by future researchers and ESL teachers at secondary school level who are interested in improving students’ persuasive argumentative essays