Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.23095/ETI.2021.22.2.311

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

HUANG, Yipin (Chonnam National University)
ZHENG, Xiaoli (Wenzhou University)
KIM, Hoisoo (Chonnam National University)
Publication Information
Educational Technology International / v.22, no.2, 2021 , pp. 311-339 More about this Journal
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
Scaffolding; Individual metacognition; Learning achievement; Online collaborative argumentation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI
2 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.   DOI
3 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.
4 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.   DOI
5 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.
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 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.
10 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.   DOI
11 Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12 Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation: Critical reasoning and argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13 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.   DOI
14 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.   DOI
15 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.
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 Young, A. E., & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Comparing metacognition assessments of mathematics in academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(3), 259-275.   DOI
21 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22 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.   DOI
23 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.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 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.   DOI
26 Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90-104.   DOI
27 Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation?. Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.   DOI
28 Panadero, E., & Jarvela, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190-203.   DOI
29 Puhl, T., Tsovaltzi, D., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Blending Facebook discussions into seminars for practicing argumentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 605-616.   DOI
30 Shehab, H. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2015). Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies. Learning and Instruction, 35, 51-61.   DOI
31 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
32 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.   DOI
33 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.   DOI
34 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.   DOI
35 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.
36 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.
37 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.   DOI
38 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.
39 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.
40 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.   DOI
41 McNeese, M. D. (2000). Socio-cognitive factors in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2(3), 164-177.   DOI
42 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.   DOI
43 Jin, Q., & Kim, M. (2021). Supporting elementary students' scientific argumentation with argument-focused metacognitive scaffolds (AMS). International Journal of Science Education, 1-23.
44 Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45 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.   DOI
46 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.   DOI
47 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.
48 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.
49 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.   DOI
50 Gul, F., & Shehzad, S. (2012). Relationship between metacognition, goal orientation and academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1864-1868.   DOI
51 Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
52 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.   DOI
53 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.   DOI
54 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.   DOI
55 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.   DOI
56 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.
57 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.   DOI
58 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.   DOI