• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.311-339
• /
• 2021

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.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.207-231
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of Critical Thinking Strategy supporting argumentation activities between learners. The research question is whether the form of Critical Thinking Strategy offered to support meaningful interaction of collaborative argumentation between learners influences the knowledge acquisition, learning outcome, and student satisfaction. For this, the collaboration outcome of the group, the level of individual knowledge acquisition, the level of students satisfaction were measured as outcome of argumentation activity and their differences analyzed. This study concludes the following: A comparison of the group that was provided with Critical Thinking Strategy (test group) and the group provided with general argumentation scaffolds (compared group) showed there wasn't statistically significant differences in the quality of the learning outcome of collaboration between the groups and in students satisfaction. But there was significant difference in the degree of individual acquisition depending on the offering of scaffolding for Critical Thinking. Therefore, as premised in this study, supporting meaningful mutual interaction between learners during collaborative argumentation using Critical Thinking Strategy has a positive influence on the individual acquisition of domain knowledge. The group provided with scaffolding for Critical Thinking gained higher effect in the degree of knowledge sharing and individual acquisition of domain knowledge compared to the group provided with general argumentation scaffolding.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to develop collaboration scripts as an instructional means to facilitate argumentation in computer-supported collaborative learning, and to analyze their effects. To develop collaboration scripts for argumentation, researchers used activity theory as a conceptual framework and refined the design principles by design-based research. Using LAMS, collaboration scripts for argumentation were developed based on the ArgueGraph. To examine their effects, 72 participants were divided into two groups by internal scripts and randomly allocated to one of three external scripts. Applying mixed methods, researchers analyzed argumentation competence related to the cognitive aspect, examined self-efficacy related to the motivational aspect, and identified the factors influencing collaborative learning processes and outcomes. Researchers found that the internal script is a critical factor to determine the dimensions, degrees, and duration of improvement in argumentation competence. That is, learners with higher internal scripts improved highly in the quality of single arguments, while learners with lower internal scripts improved continuously in the quality of argumentation sequences. The effects of the external scripts varied with the internal script levels and supporting periods. Besides, collaboration scripts for argumentation had positive effects on learners' self-efficacy, and learners with higher internal scripts had better self-efficacy. The factors influencing collaborative learning processes and outcomes showed different results depending on the learning context. Therefore, when scripting learner's interaction in CSCL, researchers should design the scripts adaptable to a natural context of activities.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.895-910
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students' progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students' group norms related to participation were developed, and the students' epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students' group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others' arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.216-233
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study was to identify the aspects of elementary school students' interactions shown conceptual changes in collaborative scientific argumentation. Fifty sixth graders of an elementary school in Jeonju were selected for this study. Ten small groups consisting of five students each were organized evenly with considerations of their gender, science achievement, scientific discussion experience and degree of communication apprehension. 'Food web and Ecosystem' and 'Change of Moon shape' were selected as the proper topics of collaborative scientific argumentation in terms of difficulty to be understanded by the $6^{th}$ graders. The small group's dialogue was recorded. The students' activity sheets, field note and interviews of the participants were collected. Based on the collected data, we analyzed the aspect of small groups' interaction shown conceptual change of each student. The result of this study was as follows: The interaction aspects of the small group of students who showed conceptual changes in the collaborative scientific discussion have a tendency of showing their discussion responses, explanation-opposition discourse, the use of rigorous criteria, their collaborative attitude and participation.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.1-39
• /
• 2022

We study emotion regulation in a distant CABLe (Collaborative Argumentation Based-Learning) setting at university. We analyze how students achieve the group task of synthesizing the literature on a topic through scientific argumentation on the institutional Moodle's forum. Distinguishing anticipatory from reactive emotional regulation shows how essential it is to establish and maintain a constructive working climate in order to make the best out of disagreement both on social and cognitive planes. We operationalize the analysis of anticipatory emotional regulation through an analytical grid applied to the data of two groups of students facing similar disagreement. Thanks to sharp anticipatory regulation, group 1 solved the conflict both on the social and the cognitive plane, while group 2 had to call out for external regulation by the teacher, stuck in a cyclically resurfacing dispute. While the institutional digital environment did afford anticipatory emotional regulation, reactive emotional regulation rather occurred through complementary informal and synchronous communication tools. Based on these qualitative case studies, we draw recommendations for fostering distant CABLe at university.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.6
• /
• pp.1019-1030
• /
• 2015

This study examined the development of a teacher's teaching practice and identified argumentation-specific pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and the influence of the argumentation-specific PCK on teaching practice in an argumentation classroom. The teacher has a Ph.D degree in science education, a 19-year teaching career, and no experience in instructing in an argumentation classroom. The developed program consists of nine lessons regarding photosynthesis for 7th graders. The teacher participated in a collaborative reflection with researchers after each lesson once a week and five times in total, which lasted for thirty minutes. All of the lessons were video- and audio-recorded and the transcript of lessons and collaborative reflection, pre- and post-survey related to argumentation, and researchers' journals were analyzed. Analysis of the data showed that the teacher emphasized group interaction showing utterances of listening, evaluating arguments, counter-arguing/debating, and reflecting on argument process after the fourth lesson although the teacher focused on individual argumentation showing utterances of talking, knowing meaning of argument, and justifying with evidence in the first three lessons. Also, the argumentation-specific PCK, which was identified with the understanding of students, nature of argumentation and argumentation task strategy, also influenced the development of teaching practice. The teacher comprehended the students' challenges in argumentation, developed her understanding of the nature of argumentation from an individual plane to social plane, and demonstrated a deep understanding of the task strategy by voluntarily joining in modifying the argumentation tasks.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.840-862
• /
• 2013

This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin's argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin's argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants' collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMEs and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the flow of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2019

This study aims to explore students' epistemic practices and considerations, which are explained as underlying epistemic thoughts that guide their epistemic practices, during argumentation in science classrooms. We also investigated how collaborative reflection facilitated the development of such epistemic considerations. Two seventh-grade classes participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities and collaborative reflection after classes. A group with students' change in epistemic aspects and the influence of collaborative reflection clearly revealed from their practices was chosen as a focus group. We recorded their class discussions and collaborative reflections with the researchers. Transcriptions of the recordings and checklists we collected during the collaborative reflections were used for analysis. Results showed evident changes in the students' epistemic considerations and practices and four factors facilitating such developments were identified. First, the researcher facilitating the students to recognize each other as collaborators during collaborative reflection led development of epistemic considerations on "audience using the knowledge products." Second, the collaborative reflection facilitated construction of context for peer interactions where the students encouraged each other to participate in the discussion, resulting in the development of other students' epistemic considerations on "justifications in knowledge products." Third, the items provided on the checklists explicitly delineated expectations on their practices in argumentation, also facilitating development of epistemic considerations. Lastly, the students' imitation of the researcher's pattern of discourse facilitated construction of causal explanation and development of epistemic considerations on "nature of the knowledge products." This study will contribute to the construction of strategies that develop students' epistemic considerations and productive epistemic practices in argumentation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.1037-1049
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore how the flow of discourse move and their reasoning process in dialogic argumentation during group modeling on excretion. Five groups of three to four students in the second grade of a middle school participated in the modeling practice of a Gifted Center. Analysis was conducted on argumentation during the modeling activity in which students should explain how the waste product (ammonia) leaves the body. It was found that there was a sequential argumentative process-tentative consensus, solving the uncertainty, and consensus. There were several discourse moves - 'claim' and 'counterclaim' in the stage of tentative consensus, 'query' and 'clarification of meaning' in the stage of solving the uncertainty, and 'change of claim' in the stage of consensus. Students participated in the dialogic argumentation by constructing argument collaboratively for reaching a consensus. Critical questioning in the stage of solving the uncertainty and reasoning in the stage of consensus were the impact factors of dialogic argumentation. By answering the critical questions, students changed their claims or suggested new claims by defending or rebutting previous claims. Students justified group claims with diverse argumentation scheme and scientific reasoning to reach a group consensus. These findings have implication for science educators who want to adopt dialogic argumentation in science classes.