Educational Technology International

The Korean Society for Education Technology (한국교육공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Scaffolding Types and Individual Metacognition Levels on Learning Achievement in Online Collaborative Argumentation

  • Received : 2021.08.30
  • Accepted : 2021.10.20
  • Published : 2021.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the effects of scaffolding types (Toulmin's Argument Pattern: TAP or Argumentation Vee Diagram: AVD) and individual metacognition levels (low or high) on students' learning achievement in online collaborative argumentation. A total of 191 Chinese undergraduates took part in this study. They were randomly assigned to either the TAP scaffolding, AVD scaffolding, or no scaffolding condition. They were teamed up in small groups of two or three students to argue with their peers using SNS as the online collaborative argumentation environment. The results revealed that students in the TAP and AVD scaffolding conditions did not gain significantly higher retention or transfer scores than students without scaffolding. However, students in the TAP scaffolding condition significantly outperformed those in the AVD scaffolding condition on transfer scores. Individual metacognition did not significantly affect learning achievement in online collaborative argumentation. Additionally, there was no significant interaction effect between scaffolding types and individual metacognition levels on retention or on transfer. The findings have implications for scaffolding design for online collaborative argumentation and also suggest that more attention should be paid to social metacognition rather than to individual metacognition when students work collaboratively.

Keywords

References

  1. An, Y. J. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 723-734.
  2. Andriessen, J. (2007). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 315-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4
  4. Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (2011). Using social networking for online role-plays to develop students' argumentative strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.2.c
  5. Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x
  6. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. HmeloSilver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355-383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
  8. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
  9. Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., & Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1198-1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351
  10. Feng, C. Y., & Chen, M. P. (2014). The effects of goal specificity and scaffolding on programming performance and self-regulation in game design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12022
  11. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.34.10.906
  12. Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 29-45). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  13. Garrecht, C., Reiss, M. J., & Harms, U. (2021). 'I wouldn't want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need'-the role of issue familiarity in students' socioscientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 1-22.
  14. Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00251.x
  15. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193-223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120
  16. Greenhow, C., Gibbins, T., & Menzer, M. M. (2015). Re-thinking scientific literacy out-of-school: Arguing science issues in a niche Facebook application. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 593-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.031
  17. Guilfoyle, L., Hillier, J., & Fancourt, N. (2021). Students' argumentation in the contexts of science, religious education, and interdisciplinary science-religious education scenarios. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-18.
  18. Gul, F., & Shehzad, S. (2012). Relationship between metacognition, goal orientation and academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1864-1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.914
  19. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.002
  20. Jafarigohar, M., & Mortazavi, M. (2017). The impact of scaffolding mechanisms on EFL learners' individual and socially shared metacognition in writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1154488
  21. Jin, Q., & Kim, M. (2021). Supporting elementary students' scientific argumentation with argument-focused metacognitive scaffolds (AMS). International Journal of Science Education, 1-23.
  22. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
  24. Kern, C. L., & Crippen, K. J. (2017). The effect of scaffolding strategies for inscriptions and argumentation in a science cyberlearning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9649-x
  25. Kim, H. S. (2011). Effects of cooperative learning, graphic organizers, and shared mental models on learners' situational model construction, distribution of working memory, and metacognition in Web-based hypertext. Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 289-315. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.27.2.289
  26. Kim, J. Y., & Lim, K. Y. (2019). Promoting learning in online, ill-structured problem solving: The effects of scaffolding type and metacognition level. Computers & Education, 138, 116-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.001
  27. Kim, N. J., Vicentini, C. R., & Belland, B. R. (2021). Influence of scaffolding on information literacy and argumentation skills in virtual field trips and problem-based learning for scientific problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-22.
  28. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008
  29. Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2014). Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction, 32, 22-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.003
  30. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447
  31. Laru, J., Naykki, P., & Jarvela, S. (2011). Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004
  32. Litman, C., & Greenleaf, C. (2018). Argumentation tasks in secondary English language arts, history, and science: Variations in instructional focus and inquiry space. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.187
  33. McNeese, M. D. (2000). Socio-cognitive factors in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2(3), 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00011499
  34. Muhid, A., Amalia, E. R., Hilaliyah, H., Budiana, N., & Wajdi, M. B. N. (2020). The effect of metacognitive strategies implementation on students' reading comprehension achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 847-862. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13257a
  35. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
  36. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
  37. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
  38. O'Neil Jr, H. F., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9941208
  39. Panadero, E., & Jarvela, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226
  40. Puhl, T., Tsovaltzi, D., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Blending Facebook discussions into seminars for practicing argumentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 605-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.006
  41. Shehab, H. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2015). Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies. Learning and Instruction, 35, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.004
  42. Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation?. Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v17i2.2405
  43. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  44. Teng, F. (2017). The effects of task-induced involvement load on word learning and confidence judgments mediated by knowledge and regulation of cognition. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17, 791-808.
  45. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Tsovaltzi, D., Judele, R., Puhl, T., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Scripts, individual preparation and group awareness support in the service of learning in Facebook: How does CSCL compare to social networking sites?. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 577-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.067
  47. Tsovaltzi, D., Judele, R., Puhl, T., & Weinberger, A. (2017). Leveraging social networking sites for knowledge co-construction: Positive effects of argumentation structure, but premature knowledge consolidation after individual preparation. Learning and Instruction, 52, 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.06.004
  48. Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2019). First-and second-order scaffolding of argumentation competence and domain-specific knowledge acquisition: A systematic review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(3), 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2019.1612772
  49. Van De Bogart, K. L., Dounas-Frazer, D. R., Lewandowski, H. J., & Stetzer, M. R. (2017). Investigating the role of socially mediated metacognition during collaborative troubleshooting of electric circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 1-19.
  50. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  51. Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477-500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9380-2
  52. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  53. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  54. Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation: Critical reasoning and argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers & T. K. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years! (pp. 717-726). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  56. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
  57. Yang, W. T., Lin, Y. R., She, H. C., & Huang, K. Y. (2015). The effects of prior-knowledge and online learning approaches on students' inquiry and argumentation abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1564-1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045957
  58. Young, A. E., & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Comparing metacognition assessments of mathematics in academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(3), 259-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218755915