Supporting university students’ argumentative source-based writing

Argumentative writing from sources is a literacy practice that students commonly find challenging. The present article reports a descriptive study where students’ source-based writing in small groups was supported with either print-based or digital scaffolding. Students analyzed source texts given to them and used their analysis to compose a position paper on a controversial educational topic. Position papers were analyzed for depth and breadth of argumentation, stand and justifications, degree of transformation of source texts’ argumentation, and structure. The study suggests that students in both scaffolding groups were fairly capable of identifying relevant reasons representing various perspectives on the topic in source texts and using them to build an argument in their position papers. However, students seldom transformed the arguments by adding their own thoughts or connecting arguments across the texts. Further, quite a few students seem to struggle in structuring their essays: 41% of essays in the print-based scaffolding group and 24% of essays in the digital scaffolding group were unstructured. Instructional implications are discussed.acceptedVersionPeer reviewe

Sähköpostin avulla perustelevaan keskusteluun?

Vuorovaikutus muiden ihmisten kanssa edistääargumentointitaitojen ja kriittisen ajattelun kehittymistä.Entä kun vuorovaikutus tapahtuu sähköpostin avulla?peerReviewe

Studying argumentation in higher education by electronic mail

The study reports on an e-mail study experiment in which 31 undergraduate students practised argumentation by engaging in mutual e-mail discussions. The study sought to find out whether the students' argumentation skills developed during the e-mail study period. Two tutor-led and two student-led e-mail study groups were formed. During the six-week study period the students prepared e-mail messages on the basis of a course in the sociology of education which consisted of two set books and a series of lectures. The e-mail students practised argumentation by presenting their own grounded standpoints and counterarguments. The students of the comparison group (n = 193) did not practise argumentation but completed the course through self-study of the required course readings. After the course the level of the students' (n = 224) argumentation skills was measured. In addition, the e-mail students (n = 31) were sent a questionnaire, the e-mail tutors (n = 2) were interviewed, and the students' e-mail messages (n = 441) were analysed. The analyses addressed a) the differences in the level of the argumentation skills between the e-mail and the self-study students, and between students of the two different e-mail study modes, b) the e-mail students' and tutors' perceptions and experiences from the e-mail studies, and c) the quality and quantity of argumentation and counterargumentation in the students' e-mail messages, and factors that affected them. The level of the students' argumentation skills proved poor. However, the e-mail students' argumentation skills turned out to be better than the self-study students'. Similarly, the students in the student-led mode performed better in the tasks measuring argumentation skills than the students in the tutor-led mode. In addition, the e-mail students' motivation to learn was high and most of them found that the e-mail discussions included a lot of constructive critique and advice. The tutors found that the e-mail discussions frequently included the students' own standpoints and critical comments. In addition, the level of argumentation in the students' messages improved over time, although the general level of argumentation in the messages was poor. Furthermore, the students in the student-led mode presented more and higher-level counterargumentation than the students in the tutor-led mode. The study suggested that the argumentation skills of Finnish university students should be developed and that e-mail study is a reasonable means for doing this. In addition, the results showed that in particular, the student-led mode of e-mail study provides the students with a good learning environment for the practising of argumentation skills

Collaborative argumentation through role-play by students on a degree programme in social services

The aim of this study was to investigate the nature of collaborative argumentation by students enrolled in a degree program in social services. Students (n = 29) in a University of Applied Sciences participated in role-play discussions and problem solving on adolescents’ substance abuse. The discussions were conducted either online (15 students) or face-to-face (14 students). The data comprise the students’ asynchronous online and face-to-face discussions, which were analysed by identifying discussion fragments relevant in collaborative argumentation, and by comparing the results of the two groups. The results showed that the face-to-face discussions were more collaborative than the online discussions. Collaboration during the face-to-face interaction was particularly evident in the higher number of explanations and acceptances. The online discussions, in turn, exhibited a higher quality of argumentation than the face-to-face discussions. However, the level of students’ justifications in both discussion types was rather low. In conclusion, these results emphasise the importance of developing methods of learning collaborative argumentation in social work education for students’ multifaceted understanding of issues encountered in the field.peerReviewe

Defending either a personal or an assigned standpoint : role play in supporting secondary school students’ argumentation face to face and through chat

This study clarifies whether a specific type of role play supports upper secondary school students’ collaborative argumentation. Data consist of 12 dyadic face-to-face and 12 chat debates. Data analysis focused on the quality of students’ argumentation. Comparisons were made between students who defended standpoints at variance with their personal opinions on the topics, between the two study modes and topics, and by gender. When the students defended a standpoint differing from their personal opinion, the male students engaged in counterargumentation more often than the female students. When, in turn, the students defended their personal standpoint, they produced both counterargumentative and non-argumentative speech turns equally often, and their arguments were more poorly elaborated than when they defended an assigned standpoint. The study suggests that role play in which both counterargumentation and students’ personal standpoints on an issue are taken into account is a viable means to support students’ high quality argumentation.peerReviewe