journal of research in science teaching volume 50 issue 2 2013 [doi 10.1002_tea.21076] maria...

8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath

1/29

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 50, NO. 2, PP. 209237 (2013)

Research Article

Exploring Young Students Collaborative Argumentation Within aSocioscientific Issue

Maria Evagorou1 and Jonathan Osborne2

1Department of Education, University of Nicosia, Cyprus, 46 Makedonitissas Ave,

Nicosia 1700, Cyprus2Stanford Graduate School of Education, 485 Lasuen Mall, Stanford, California

Received 29 August 2012; Accepted 13 December 2012

Abstract: Argumentation has been the emphasis of many studies during the last decade. However,

previous studies have not identified why some students are more successful than others, and what are

students characteristics of argumentation, especially when working collaboratively. The purpose of this

study was to identify how young students construct arguments when working in pairs, and hence identi-

fy those characteristics of their interactions that might lead students to provide better written arguments

in the science classroom. More specifically this study follows a case study design, examining two

different pairs from a class of 12- to 13-year-old students that participated in a specially designed

instructional approach within a socioscientific issue. The two pairs were videotaped for a duration of

four, 50-minute lessons and the transcripts were analyzed in order to identify characteristics of students

interactions during argumentation. The results indicated that one of the pairs constructed high level

written arguments by the end of the instruction, and that the two pairs engaged in different types ofdiscussion. The findings suggest that one of the pairs engaged more with the topic, and that a socio-

scientific context does not afford on its own engagement with argumentation. On the contrary, there is a

need of ownership, and engagement that is not automatic and was only evident in one of the pairs.

Therefore, an implication arising from this issue for research is an exploration of how students from

different backgrounds, either social or cultural, understand and identify with the main socioscientific

issues that are used as part of teaching science, in order to understand how to better design curriculum

that will support engagement of all students with the topic. 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci

Teach 50: 209237, 2013

Keywords: argumentation; collaborative argumentation; socioscientific

Argumentation, the social process, where co-operating individuals try to adjust their

intentions and interpretations by verbally presenting a rationale of their actions (Patronis,Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999, p.747748), has been the emphasis of many studies in the

field of education and the learning sciences during recent years (i.e., de Vries, Lund, &

Baker, 2002; Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Kuhn, Wang, & Li, 2011; Pontecorvo, 1993).

Argumentation is also part of the practice of science for evaluating, refining and establishing

new theories (Duschl, 1990) and is considered a core element of the scientific enterprise.

The importance of argumentation in science education has been documented elsewhere

Contract grant sponsor: Kings College, London.

Correspondence to: Maria Evagorou; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.21076

Published online 10 January 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


2/29

(i.e., Cavagnetto, 2010; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008; Osborne, 2010) but recent edu-

cational reforms have called for a science education that places an emphasis on teaching

science as argument (i.e., Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007). Research in the field of

argumentation in science education, which has emerged in the last decade, has focusedon understanding, developing, and assessing mostly students, and to a less extent teachers

arguments (Bell, 2004; Brem & Rips, 2000; Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Jimenez-

Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Sandoval, 2003; Schauble, Glaser, Raghavan, &

Reiner, 1991).

Even though argumentation is an important aspect of the scientific enterprise, and has

been studied extensively in science education (e.g., Bell, 2004; Erduran et al., 2004;

Herrenkohl & Guerra, 1998; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002; Sandoval, 2003;

Sandoval & Reiser, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), it rarely occurs in the science classrooms

(Newton, Driver, and Osborne). Classroom practices do not promote argumentation as part of

the science discourse, and even when they do, students find it difficult to engage in dialogic or

collaborative argumentationeither in whole classroom (Erduran et al., 2004), or group dis-

cussions (Kuhn, Goh, Iordanou, & Shaenfiel, 2008; Sampson & Clark, 2008), unless specifical-

ly scaffolded by the learning environment (e.g., Bell, 2004; Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000)

and the teacher (Berland & Reiser, 2010; McNeill & Pimentel, 2010; Newton, Driver, &

Osborne, 1999; Sadler, 2009). Previous studies show that when presented with a topic on

which to argue, students find it difficult to collect the evidence that can be used to support their

claim (Bell, 2004); often insist on their original claim even though their evidence might con-

tradict it (Evagorou, Jimenez-Aleixandre, & Osborne, 2012; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-

Munoz, 2002); do not provide adequate evidence (Sandoval & Milwood, 2005); and find it

difficult to rebut an argument or claim provided by other students (Cavagnetto, Hand, &

Norton-Meier, 2010). More recently, studies in argumentation in science education have also

focused on the exploration of the progress of students argumentation in the class (Berland &

Reiser, 2010), the patterns of classroom argumentationhow argumentation develops in a

classroom and its characteristics (McNeill & Pimentel, 2010), developed a learning progression

for argumentation (Berland & Mcneill, 2010), and explored the characteristics of collaborative

argumentation which takes place in groups (Ryu & Sandoval, 2008; Sampson & Clark, 2009).

What has been gained from the aforementioned studies in argumentation is an under-

standing of the difficulties that the learners face when they try to construct their arguments,

either scientific or socioscientific, which can potentially support practice by helping to design

more effective learning environments. However, the argument we attempt to put forward in

this article is that although the body of research in the area of argumentation is growing,numerous questions need more attention, especially questions pertaining to the interaction in

the micro-level of the groups, which take place during collaborative argumentation, and the

reasons which might lead some students in being more successful in providing high quality

arguments when working in groups. We argue that by exploring the characteristics of the

interactions in pairs or groups during collaborative argumentation, and comparing them to the

final outcome of the groups (the argument or product) we can better understand ways in

which groups should be scaffolded during argumentation lessons in order to improve both the

process of argumentation and the product (their arguments), and hence, their ability to make

connections to their existing knowledge schemata (von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008). What we

attempt to show is that as argumentation is a social process, what still needs more attention isthe impact of the process of collaborative argumentationwhat takes place in groups or pairs

when they work together to construct a group argument (Kuhn et al., 2008)on their product

(written argument). By exploring the relationship of the process and product of argumentation,

210 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


3/29

and identifying the characteristics of the successful collaborative argumentation (as judged by

the final quality of written argument) we can potentially design learning environments which

will scaffold those characteristics during the collaboration of groups in argumentation lessons,

and therefore support more successful argumentation which is the goal of recent reforms inscience education (Duschl et al., 2007). As Osborne (2010) states, [. . .] we need to under-

stand in greater detail how argumentation produces learning and what features of learning

environments produce the best arguments among the learners (p. 466). Exploring this area

can potentially help us as educators, researchers, and policy makers to understand why some

students improve their arguments, while others do not, and design more effective learning

environments that can potentially foster the collaboration that will improve argument and

argumentation.

Therefore, the issues that we seek to explore in this study are: (a) what are the characteristics

of collaborative argumentation of two pairs of 12- to 13-year-old students during a sequence of

socio-scientific lessons, and (b) what is the impact of the collaborative argumentation on the

students written argument (final product). We begin by defining the various theoretical constructs

on which this study draws, and present an argument for the importance of such a study.

Theoretical Perspectives

As stated earlier, argumentation has been explored extensively in science education, but

still several questions remain around how to better support students in this important scientific

practice. In order to better support our argument that there is a need to explore the influence

of the argumentative process on argument (the product), in this section we attempt to unpack

the main theoretical constructs present in our work, namely argumentation, collaborative

argumentation, classroom talk, and also justify the problem of this study.

Argumentation and Collaborative Argumentation

Language is central in everyday life, or as Resnick, Michaels, and OConnor (2010) place

it, language is, historically and individually, the foundation of being human, and talkdirect

exchange between humans who can attribute intentionality and understanding to each other

is the foundational act of language (p.163). Therefore language and talk enable us to under-

stand the world around us, communicate with peers, express ideas, and develop knowledge.

Other than language being central in everyday life, it is also the primary tool for communica-

tion in the classroomthe tool used to reflect upon our thoughts, and share our experiences

with others (Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004). Yet as Alexander (2005) argues

discussion and dialogue are the rarest yet the most cognitively potent elements in the basicrepertoire of classroom talk (p.30).

Argumentation is a specific form of talk that can enable students to communicate in the

classroom, and help them to view science as an epistemological and social process in which

knowledge claims are generated, adapted, reorganized, and, at times, abandoned (Lawson,

2003; Lederman, 1992). According to Toulmin (1958), the term argument refers to the set of

claims, data, warrants, and backings that contribute to the content of an argument. For other

authors argumentation is viewed as a verbal, either written or oral, and social activity aimed

at justifying or defending a standpoint for an audience (i.e., van Eemeren et al., 1996) and

refers to the process of assembling the components of an argument. In this mode, argumenta-

tion is used as a process of social construction of knowledge, in which people collectivelydiscuss and decide on the construction of shared social knowledge. Dialectical or dialogical

argumentation requires the coordination of different perspectives, and therefore participants

are expected to communicate their viewpoints, consider assumptions to their personal theories

COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 211



4/29

and rethink their original ideas based on the new information (Schwarz, 2009; Stein & Miller,

1991). In our study we use Toulmins framework as the main theoretical framework to guide

our work, but we also view argumentation, especially collaborative argumentation, as the

social construction of knowledge in which the learners are expected to share ideas, questionassumptions and restructure their existing knowledge schemata based on the interactions in

their groups. Additionally, since in our study the students are discussing a socioscientific

issue, we also see argumentation as the process of exploring ethical issues, a process which

involves moral judgment about issues of scientific concern. Socioscientific issues represent

those social issues and problems that are conceptually influenced by science and require the

integration of science concepts and processes (Sadler, Barab, & Scott, 2007) with issues of

ethics, costs, and values.

Central to our work is the construct of collaborative argumentation, and with this term

we refer to the dialogic argumentation that takes place in groups of students when they are

asked to work together on the common task of constructing and presenting an argument.

Therefore, collaborative argumentation can be viewed as similar to dialogic argumentation,

with the exception that in collaborative argumentation the emphasis is on the process of

argumentation which takes place during the collaboration in a group, without necessarily the

presence of a teacher. Therefore, collaborative argumentation is different from dialogic argu-

mentation since collaborative argumentation only takes place with a group of people, while

dialogic argumentation can either be with a group, or intellectual (Schwarz, 2009). This is

similar to collaborative learning which can be viewed as the process of engaging in a mutual

discussion, or as the shared engagement of people in an effort to solve a problem

(Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & OMalley, 1996). Based on the aforementioned definition, col-

laboration is distinguished from cooperation in that in cooperative work there is division of

the task among the participants, whereas in collaboration the task as whole is completed by

all members of the group (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Even though collaborative argumenta-

tion needs more attention in the field of science education (i.e., Kuhn et al., 2008; Ryu &

Sandoval, 2008; Sampson & Clark, 2008, 2009), collaborative learning has been the subject

of much research, especially in the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) com-

munity (i.e., Andriessen, 2005). Studies in collaborative learning in the past have focused on

establishing parameters for effective collaboration (i.e., age, sex, cognitive ability of the stu-

dents in groups). For example, a number of studies suggest that groups of learners with simi-

lar abilities seem to learn better than groups of widely varying abilities (i.e., Hogan, Nastasi,

& Pressley, 1999; Light, 1993), while others suggest that mixed-ability groups are better, and

in these groups the low-ability students benefit the most from interacting with the high abilitystudents (i.e., Zohar, 2008). Since many parameters were not controlled (i.e., age, sex, abili-

ties of participants) making it difficult to decide which was important (Webb, 2009), more

recent studies are instead moving towards understanding the conditions under which collabo-

rative learning is effective. However, collaborative learning, in a similar way as classroom

talk and argumentation, when appropriately scaffolded, does lead to better learning outcomes

(Barron, 2000; Webb, Enders, & Lewis, 1986; Webb & Palinscar, 1996), and that students

perform better when working in groups (Azmitia, 1988; Barron, 2003). According to Hogan

et al. (1999), in one of their studies, the more the peers talked in the groups about conceptual

issues, the higher the reasoning levels they achieved, which suggests that the ability to elabo-

rate each others ideas was associated with more sophisticated reasoning. This finding is simi-lar to the work by Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes (1999) and Resnick et al. (2010), whose

studies in discourse suggest that when students explicitly discuss each others ideas then the

reasoning gains are higher.




5/29


6/29

between claims and data through justifications, or the evaluation of knowledge claims in light

of evidence, either empirical or theoretical (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008), while

socioscientific argumentation depends not only on knowledge of science, but also on the

application of moral and ethical values, and personal identity (i.e., Evagorou, 2011; Evagorouet al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012; Oliveira, Akerson, & Oldfield, 2012). Therefore, one of the main

differences between scientific and socioscientific argumentation, is that in the latter there are

no clear-cut solutions, and the proposed solutions cannot be fully determined by empirical or

theoretical evidence (Sadler, 2011).

Even though SSI argumentation has been the focus of many studieswhich have

revealed the various difficulties that the students have when arguing within such contexts

using an SSI context to explore the characteristics of collaborative argumentation, and explore

the impact of the process on the product, has not been explored to our knowledge.

Purpose of Study and Research Questions

A more comprehensive approach (i.e., longer argumentation interventions, in authentic

classroom settings) on how students work together when studying a socioscientific issue, and

the kind of interactions that were shared during this argumentative collaboration has not been

reported in any of the previous studies. Therefore, what is still missing in the field of collabo-

rative argumentation, especially within an SSI context is: (a) an exploration of the features of

successful collaborative argumentation in the science classroom in this context; (b) an explo-

ration of the impact of successful collaborative argumentation on students argumentative

product; and, (c) an exploration of students characteristics of collaborative argumentation

during a longer period of time in the actual classroom. In addition, our study sought to

explore how pairs worked together during an argumentation sequence, and identify aspects of

their collaborative argumentation that can help us inform the design of argumentation learn-

ing environments. More specifically the main purpose of our study was to identify the charac-

teristics of 12- to 13-year-old students collaborative argumentation when they engaged with

a socioscientific issue and are supported by an online learning environment. The second re-

search question emerged after the initial data analysis, which revealed that one of the pairs,

was more successful than the other in terms of the quality of their written arguments. Thus,

the research questions were:

(1) When working in dyads, how do students co-construct their written arguments on

the socioscientific issue they are studying?

(2) What is the influence of collaborative argumentation on students argumentativeproduct, and hence what are the differences between the more and less successful

pairs?

Methods

This case study examined the characteristics of students collaborative argumentation that

took place in their pairs (dyads) and their impact on argument, while working on a socio-

scientific issue, for a period of four, 50-minute lessons. A learning environment was designed

in order to create the conditions that would allow the students to participate in socioscientific

argumentation (i.e., time for the students to discuss their ideas in pairs, prompt questions to

support the students during their discussion and a problem that would engage them in mean-ingful conversations). Inevitably argumentation that emerged in that class was influenced by

both the design principles incorporated in the learning environment (which is described in

detail in the section that follows) and the general culture of the class (i.e., students identities




7/29

and previous experiences, teachers usual teaching practices). This study is based on the

assumption that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds

(Merriam, 1998, p. 6), and is a case study of two pairs engaging in argumentation. A case

study according to Yin (2003) is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporaryphenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon

and context are not clearly evident (p.13), suggesting that the contextual conditions may be

highly pertinent to the phenomenon of study and it is important to study them. Implementing

a case study design allows the researcher to explore more aspects of the problem, and theo-

rize about multiple variables. A case study is a logical model of proof that allows the

researcher to draw inferences concerning causal relations among the variables under investi-

gation (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992, p. 7778). According to what theoretical positions

one embraces, the group or pair can either be viewed as comprising of independent cognitive

systems exchanging messagesmaking the individual the unit of analysisor as a single

cognitive unitmaking the pair or group the unit of analysis (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). In

this study, we assume the shared cognition approach according to which the environment is

an integral part of the processes that are taking place in the group, and learning is considered

context-dependent.

In order to account for the credibility of this studymaking sure that the study is

measuring what it claims it does (Creswell, 1998)the researcher spent considerable time

in the classroom observing the teaching and learning process, and talking to the students

during the lesson in order to become familiar with the class. Additionally, more than one

source of data was collected (videos of paired discussions, students written arguments during

the lessons, students written arguments before and after the implementation, observation

notes from the whole classroom discussion) to address each of the research questions and so

that the data could be triangulated (Patton, 1990). Finally, all of the coding categories were

discussed with a third researcher that read part of the data.

The Participants

Two dyads were selected from a larger group of 28 students that took part in a study that

examined the impact of a specially designed learning environment, supported by technology,

on students socioscientific argumentation. The students in the study attended a private school

located in the south of the United Kingdom. These students were drawn from a class that was

characterized by their teacher as above average achievers, something that is also supported by

the students Cognitive Ability Test (CAT)a test that provides a picture of standard general

abilities in language, mathematics, and science. Choosing students that are above averageachievers was of importance to our study, since our goal was to explore students character-

istics of collaborative argumentation, and therefore we wanted students that had more chances

of engaging in this process. Based on findings from previous studies, higher ability students

have more chances of engaging in argumentation (Zohar & Dori, 2003). Thus, the cases in

this situation might be considered optimal cases in order to understand how collaboration

supports argumentation in the absence of other confounding issues (Yin, 2003). Furthermore,

the students come from an area where social and economic conditions are relatively favor-

able, their ethnic classification is white British, and none of the students had any previous

experience with argumentation. Ten students were male and 18 were female, and they all

indicated that they spoke English as their first language at home. The students ranged in agefrom 12 to 13.

Only two dyads were chosen from the class due to time constraints and practical con-

cerns (i.e., only one of the researchers could be in the classroom at the time to video-tape,




8/29

and not all parents signed the consent forms for their children to be video-tapped). The choice

of the pairs due to these limitations was proposed by the teacher based on what she thought

would be pairs of students that will engage with the learning environment. According to the

teacher, the two proposed dyads were students who talked frequently in the class, and had

more chance of staying on task. These students did not have any special skills when it comes

to the use of technology, or experiences with argumentation. Table 1 below presents a sum-

mary of the students characteristics based on: (a) their Cognitive Ability Test (CAT) results,

and (b) their written argumentation as measured by a pre-assessment tool administered before

the instruction.

The Cognitive Ability Test is a widely used test in UK schools and serves as indicator

for the outcomes of the university entrance exams. According to the institution that provides

the Cognitive Ability Test, students with CAT scores above 127 are considered of very high

ability, between 119 and 126 of high ability, between 112 and 118 are considered above

average ability, and between 89 and 111 are considered of average ability. In the argument

pre-assessment test A1, A2, and B2 have scores above average. The argument assessment

was administered to all students by their teacher before the instruction and took a whole

session to complete (50 minutes). The average score on the argument pre-assessment for the

whole class was 13.3/20 (Evagorou, 2009), and the test was based on Toulmins (1958)

framework of argumentation and used the levels proposed by Erduran et al. (2004).

The choice of pairs over groups in this study was suggested to the teacher by the first

author, and the teacher agreed and accepted to follow this way of working in her class, even

though she would usually have grouped them into fours. Even though some studies show that

groups of four students tend to be more productive than pairs (e.g., Alexopoulou & Driver,

1996), it was decided to organize the students in pairs as for the largest part of the lessonthey were working with a computer, for which pairs would make it easier. Additionally, we

were aware that other studies suggest that pairs are better because students cannot withdraw

and leave the responsibility of discussion to other members (i.e., Webb & Palinscar, 1996).

Furthermore, these pairs were different because one was a mixed gender dyad and the second

a female dyad. Both pairs were based consisted of friends. The decision to allow students to

form pairs based on friendship, and not be assigned by the teacher, is based on evidence from

previous studies (i.e., Alexopoulou & Driver, 1996; Hogan et al., 1999), which shows that

friendship groups are better in collaboration than groups assigned by teachers, that the best of

single sex groups did not engage in collaboration in mixed pairs (Tolmie & Howe, 1993), and

single-sex groups function better than mixed groups (also see Bennett, Hogarth, Lubben,Campell, & Robinson (2010) for an extended review). Since the purpose of this study was to

examine the characteristics of students collaborative argumentation, pairs were chosen that

were more likely to engage in the practice of argumentation.

Table 1

Cognitive ability and argumentation results for the two dyads

Gender Science CAT English CAT Maths CAT

Argumentation

Pre-AssessmentDyad A

Student A1 Male 112 115 117 16/20Student A2 Female 119 138 123 15/20

Dyad BStudent B1 Female 108 104 104 11/20Student B2 Female 120 115 122 15/20




9/29

Context

In order to engage students in socioscientific argumentation, an online learning environ-

ment, Argue-WISE, was designed and used. Argue-WISE is designed within the WISE

(Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) platform (Linn, Bell, & Davis, 2004) and makesuse of both knowledge representation and discussion based tools. Such a technology-enhanced

environment provides scaffolds for argument construction by making thinking visible, making

the structure of argument construction explicit, and by structuring both peer to peer and group

discussion. One of the main goals of Argue-WISE was to implement a learning environment

to enhance young students argumentation skills within the context of a controversial, socio-

scientific topic and to evaluate the way in which students arguments develop.

The design of Argue-WISE is based on project-based learning (Krajcik, Blumenfeld,

Marx, Bass, & Fredricks, 1998) and the driving question of the learning environment was:

Whether the UK government should kill the gray squirrels in order to save the indigenous

red. Argue-WISE consists of four, 50-minute lessons, in which the students have to work inpairs in order to study the problem and find evidence within the learning environment to

support their argument (Evagorou & Osborne, 2007). The two dyads were video-taped during

the four, 50-minute lessons that took place in a computer lab at their school. Before introduc-

ing students to argumentation, all 28 students completed an argument pre-assessment test

that was administered by the teacher. A week later the teacher introduced argumentation

(50-minute session) using a lesson that she designed in collaboration with the first author.

During this introductory session the teacher introduced the claim: Boys are cleverer than

girls in science, and challenged the students to discuss it. The purpose of this session was to

introduce the students to the elements of argumentation (i.e., evidence to support claim, chal-

lenge evidence) and model the structure of a good argument. Even though the design of thisstudy was informed by Toulmins (1958) framework, the teacher did not explicitly teach its

elements. The introductory lesson was video-recorded but data from this session are not pre-

sented in this study. Each one of the four lessons is described in detail in the section that

follows. It is important to note that during Lessons 13 the students worked in their pairs

trying to complete the task presented to them through Argue-WISE. During this time

the teacher responded to questions by the pairs, but did not engage the classroom in whole-

classroom discussions, and did not provide any information other than the one within the

learning environment. Lesson 4 was the whole classroom discussion during which the teacher

coordinated the presentation of the dyads arguments.

Lesson 1: During the first lesson the teacher introduced students to WISE and

Argue-WISE and provided usernames and passwords for each one of the self-selected dyads.

The students worked in their pairs in front of the computers to find out the problem they

would study (If the government should kill the gray squirrel in order to save the red), to

state their claim before familiarizing with the problem and then go through a number of

activities to help them understand the ecology of the red and the gray squirrel and how the

two differ.

Lesson 2: In the second lesson, the students worked again in the same pairs in Argue-

WISE studying information regarding the decrease in the red squirrel population and the

causes of the change in the numbers of the population. Additionally, they studied historical

data sets informing them about the population of the red squirrel before the introduction

of the gray. During the session the students were supported by prompt windows within

Argue-WISE and SenseMakera scaffolding tool within WISE designed to help students

coordinate evidence and claim (Bell, 2004).




10/29

Lesson 3: During this session the students worked in their pairs in front of the computer

and studied ways to maintain the red squirrel population as well as real stories of how people

in various areas in the UK acted in order to save the red squirrel. Finally, the students in their

pairs completed their arguments and submitted them on-line.Lesson 4: During this last lesson the students were asked to present and discuss their

arguments during a whole classroom discussion. The teacher facilitated the whole classroom

discussion.

The Role of the Teacher

The teacher, Heather, had no previous experience with argumentation or WISE, and was

briefed before the implementation as to the theoretical framework that informed the design of

Argue-WISE, and issues pertaining to argumentation. Heather was not specifically instructed

on how to teach argumentation since one of the purposes of the overall project was to explore

the impact of the technology on students argumentation, hence, she enacted the learning

environment based on her understanding of what was discussed with the first author, and her

usual instructional practices. The analysis of the whole class discussions are presented elsewhere

(see Evagorou & Dillon, 2011), and suggest that the teacher supported and encouraged discussion

in the classroom during the whole classroom discussion, her questions were facilitating the dia-

logue, providing positive feedback to the students, while at the same time helping them to built

on each others ideas and understand the structure of an argument. Additionally, Heather used

most of the time for pair discussions (Lessons 13), and tried to model argumentation by

discussing evidence and its validity, and how it could, or could not, support claims.

Data Analysis

The conversations that took place within the dyads, and the whole classroom discussions

were video recorded and transcribed. Additionally, all written arguments that the pairs had to

submit within Argue-WISE in each one of the lessons were also recorded. The analysis of the

data focused on: (a) the quality of the written arguments as measured by the framework pro-

posed by Erduran et al. (2004); (b) the quality of the argumentation during the discussions in the

pairs as measured by the framework proposed by Erduran et al. (2004); and (c) the character-

istics of the collaborative argumentation. The following steps were utilized during the analysis:

Step 1: In order to evaluate the quality of the arguments (product) all written arguments

in each one of the lessons were analyzed using the modified version of Toulmins

Argumentation Pattern (TAP) as proposed by Erduran et al. (2004). The authors suggest the

following levels for arguments, with Level 1 arguments indicating the lowest quality, andLevel 5 arguments the highest.

Level 1: Arguments that are a simple claim versus a counter-claim or a claim versus a

claim.

Level 2: Consist of a claim versus a claim with either data, warrants, or backings but

which does not possesses any rebuttals.

Level 3: Consists of a series of claims or counter-claims with either data, warrants, or

backings with the occasional weak rebuttal.

Level 4: Arguments with a claim with a clearly identifiable rebuttal. Such an argument

may have several claims and counter-claims.

Level 5: An extended argument with more than one rebuttal.

However, Level 4 and Level 5 arguments can more often be found in conversations when

the arguer is forced to rebut another argument or claim, therefore oral argumentation. Even




11/29

though we are aware that TAP is more appropriate for oral arguments, especially since it is

more difficult to offer rebuttals in written arguments (i.e., Erduran, 2008), it was decided that

TAP will be used both for oral and written arguments for the sake of consistency, to allow us

to compare the written and oral arguments of the pairs.Step 2: In order to evaluate the characteristics of collaborative argumentation, the tran-

scripts from all four lessons were read line-by-line by the first author, and off-task conversa-

tion was removed. Off-task talk was interpreted as talk towards a goal other than generating

claims and evidence for the topic they were exploring. For example, text of students talking

about other lessons would be considered off-task. The remaining text was: (a) open coded in

NVivo, using conversational turns of the partners in the pairs; (b) coded using the frameworks

proposed by Herrenkohl and Guerra (1998) and Mercer et al. (1999); (c) recoded using

merged codes, an outcome of step (b); and (d) the transcripts were read again twice by the

first author to isolate meaningful episodes that related to issues pertaining to the purposes of

the study. Episodes were defined as smaller units of coherent interaction within events

(Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 57), and due to the exploratory nature of the research ques-

tions all on-task interactions were considered episodes. A new episode was coded as such

when a new idea or a new claim was put forward by one of the students. Thirty-one such

episodes were identified for the first pair, and 20 for the second pair for all the lessons. The

whole classroom discussion sections of the transcript were considered as episodes as well,

and were coded for argumentation only (as described in Step 3).

This iterative analysis undertaken with the aid of the second author led to the codes

presented in Table 2. However, the main codes: negotiating a shared understanding/explorato-

ry talk, dispute talk and cumulative talk are mutually exclusive. So for example, an episode

that was coded as cumulative could not have been coded as dispute as well. The other

codes presented in Table 2 (namely using analogies, discussing structure, explaining data,

questioning data, asking questions) are not mutually exclusive with any of the previous cate-

gory of codes (i.e., the Mercer codes). For example, as we observed during our analysis, in

some of the episodes that were coded as negotiating a shared understanding, part of the

episode was coded as asking questions. The code asking questions was also identified in

episodes that were not coded as negotiating a shared understanding. During the first round

of analysis a part of the transcripts (20%) was coded by a second researcher with the initial

agreement of 70%, that reached 90% after discussing the categories. During the final round of

analysis, the first and second author coded the transcripts independently and discussed the

analysis until an acceptable level of agreement was reached.

Step 3: In order to identify the elements of argument in students oral argumentation thesame framework as in Step 1 was applied (Erduran et al., 2004) to the episodes from all four

lessons. Two raters coded the episodes independently to identify the following codes and then

agreement was reached.

Claim: The conclusion whose merits are to be established.

Data: Information provided within the learning environment that can be used to support

or contradict a claim.

Warrant: The reason that is used to justify the connections between the data and

conclusion.

Qualifier: Specifies the condition under which the claim is true, and are phrasesthat show what kind of degree of reliance is to be placed on conclusions, given the

arguments available to support them.

Rebuttal: Specifies the conditions in which the claim is not true.




12/29

Table2

Argumentationcharacteristicsofpaireddiscussions

DiscourseCode

Definition

Example

Maincategories

Exploratorytalk/

negotiatinga

shared

understanding

Thestudentsinthepairengagedcriticallybutconstructivelyw

itheachothers

ideasorwhentheid

easofferedbyonestudentwerediscu

ssed.This

categorycaninvolvequestionasking,butitcanalsoinvolveproductive,

argumentativeinteractionsinwhichindividualsareworkingtoresolve

disputes,withoutne

cessarilyaskingquestions

A1:These[redsquirrels]aredyingbecauseofstarvatio

n,because(.)

A2:Theyareeatingallthefood.(.)

Becausethegray

squirrelispertinentanywherebut

theredsquirre

llivesinconiferouswoods

A1:Anywhere,thatsagoodpoint

A2:Sotheybasicallyeatthesamethingexcept

A1:Thegraycan

liveanywhere

A2:Yeah.Sotheybasicallyeatthesamethingexceptthatthegray

squirreldoesn

tmindthefactthatthehazelnutsaren

tripe.

Whereasthere

dsquirreldoes

A1:Sothereisth

esize,plustheyarealotbiggerso

theyneedmorefood(.)

A2:Yeah

Disputetalk

Definedbyanexplicit

challengeofaclaimputforthbyanotherparticipant

B1:Girlsareclev

ererthanboys.

(i.e.,disagree,nottr

ue)

B2:Idontagree

B1:Theyare

Cumulativ

etalk

Thespeakersagreewitheachotherbut:withoutdebate,and

theyshareand

A2:Thegraynee

dsmorefoodbutbecausethereismoreofthe(.)

buildinformationin

anuncriticalway

A1:Therearesomany(.)Ireckonifyoudidntdoanyth

ingwithinlike

50yearsyouw

ouldnthaveasmanyredsquirrelsas

(.)

A2:[Shakingher

head]Yeah.

A1:Therewould

be(.)

A2:Ibelievetheywoulddecrease

A1:Theywouldhavetodosomething

A2:Thegraysqu

irrelswouldincreasesotherewouldntbesomany

squirrelsexcep

tgraysquirrels

A1:Theyarenot

thenativesquirrels

A2:TheyarefromNorthAmerica

A1:So(.)itsgoo

d.

A2:Theyaredifferentinsizebuttheyarenotreallydifferentintheir

eatinghabits

(Continued)




13/29

Table2

(Continued)

DiscourseCode

Definition

Example

Subcategories

Askingqu

estions

Theyaskeachotherquestionsaboutthedata,oranyotherquestionthatis

relevanttowhattheyarediscussing.

A2:OK,ahm,squirrelpoxhadbeenprovedthatithas

moreeffecton

theredsquirrels?

Questioningdata

Theyengageinquestioningthevalidityor

B2:Whatsfourthgrade?

trustworthinessofth

edata

B1:Ithinktheyare10[yearsold].[readingfromtheevid

encecards]for

boysandgirlsin17countries.Theresultsarefrom20

01.Wow!That

isoutofdate

B2:Itsoutofdate

Explainingdata

Whenthestudentstry

toexplainthedatatoeachother

B2:Yeah.Thereisonlylikeonethatthegirlsarehigher.OnlytheCzech

Republic

B1:SoitsSingaporeand,whereisit?

B2:CzechRepub

lic.AndthentheUnitedStatesitisth

esame,3.3.

B1:SoitisSin

gapore,CzechRepublic

B2:WhereisCzechRepublic?

B1:Here[pointin

gatdatatable]

Readingdata

TheyengagedinreadingthedatafromArgue-WISE

Discussing

structure

Thestudentsintheirpairsarediscussingthestructureofthe

irfinal

A1:WeshoulddotheargumentasinhowGalileodidthis

submission/argumen

t

A2:Ha[laughing

]

A1:Twopeopletalking

A2:No

A1:Comeon,tha

twouldbe(.)Galileo,Galeli(.).Wec

oulddothatin

twoarguments

Usinganalogies

Studentsuseanalogies

tounderstandtheirdata,ortoexplain

thedatato

anotherstudents

A1:Wow,thepop

ulationofBritaininsouthis16millionandthatsnot

muchcompare

dtoothercountries

A2:Yeah

A1:Thatsquite[inaudible]itsprobablyabout(.)howmanypeoplein

thisschool?It

sabout3,000.Includingteachers.Andthatslots




14/29

The two raters read the transcripts independently to identify the argument that was put

forward in the conversation, then identify the elements of argument as presented in Toulmins

(1958) framework, and finally assign a level to the argument using Erduran et al.s (2004)

framework. More specifically, each one of the conversational turns in each one of the epi-sodes was read in order to identify whether it could be coded using the above codes. The

whole classroom episodes were also coded using the TAP. For the purposes of this article

only sections of the episodes of whole classroom discussion in which the students of the two

pairs participated were used. The two raters then met to discuss any variation in coding, and

any differences between the two raters that could not be reconciled were brought to a third

researcher who made a decision after hearing the two arguments.

Step 4: In this step, the analysis from the previous steps was compared and contrasted.

More specifically, after identifying the levels of written argumentation in Step 1 for each

group, the analysis from Step 2 was reread to compare the kind of argumentation that took

place in the pairs with their final product. A timeline was also created to be able to compare

the discussion in the pair with when their product was submitted. A similar process took

place with comparing findings from Step 2 and Step 3.

Findings

The analysis described in this section examined students collaborative argumentation dur-

ing a socioscientific lesson, and explored whether there were any differences in the quality of

the pairs written arguments, and any differences in students characteristics of collaborative

argumentation. To begin with, Table 3 presents the quality of the pairs written arguments

during the four argumentation lessons.

Argument Product

A substantial difference between the two dyads at the end of the instruction, as shown in

Table 3, was the quality of the written arguments, with Dyad A students providing Level 3

and Level 4 arguments by the end of the lessons, and Dyad B providing only Level 2 argu-

ments throughout the four lessons (Table 3). Therefore, Dyad A proved to be good in written

argument by the end of the instruction, while Dyad B failed to improve. However, even

though the two pairs were different, at least as indicated by their scores on the argument pre-

assessment test (see Table 1), they were quite similar in the initial arguments, since both

Dyad A and Dyad B provided Level 2 arguments during the first lesson when they were asked

for the first time to argue for or against the UK governments decision to kill the gray squirrel

in order to save the red squirrel. Examples of written arguments from the two dyads, fromLessons 1 and 3 are presented in Table 4.

Both of the arguments during the first lessons are Level 2 since they consist of a claim

(the same claim for both dyadsthat we should kill the gray squirrel), and a warrant that was

Table 3

Levels of arguments for the two dyads for each lesson

Lesson

Level of Arguments

Dyad A Dyad B

Lesson 1 Level 2 Level 2Lesson 2 Level 2 Level 2Lesson 3 Level 3 Level 2Lesson 4 Level 4 Level 2




15/29

available from within the learning environment. Even though the initial arguments were simi-

lar for the two pairs, during the implementation of the learning environment, and especially

at the end of Lesson 3 as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the first pair improved their argument for

the first time during the instruction by providing more data, and structuring their argument in

a way that the claim was better supported. In this new argument, Dyad A is providing a

different claim than in their first argumentthe government should kill some gray squirrels

and not alland this argument is supported by various pieces of data (i.e., the red squirrels

die from squirrelpox), warrant (i.e., because they take the red squirrels food), and a weak

rebuttal (i.e., but the gray ones are immune to squirrelpox). On the contrary, Dyad B insists

on the original claimthe government should kill the gray squirrelproviding pieces of

data (i.e., gray is resistant to squirrelpox, the gray is an introduced species), and a warrant(because they were originally here) that is not directly linked to their claim. Therefore, the

written arguments provided by the pairs show that Dyad A improved, both in the way that the

argument was structured, and in the pieces of evidence that were added in the argument as

they progressed within the learning environment, changing along the way their initial claim,

based on the new information they were presented from Argue-WISE. On the contrary, Dyad

B did not seem to improve in the way they structured their argument, their initial claim did

not change, and not all the new information from the learning environment was used to enrich

their argument.

At the end of the implementation of the learning environment (Lesson 4), the pairs were

asked to present their arguments during a whole classroom discussion in which the teacherand the other pairs could challenge them. The following is a representative example from the

presentation of the first pairs final argument during the whole classroom discussion. The

elements of the argument, based on TAP, are shown in the last column.

Table 4

Examples of arguments for the two dyads

Dyad A Level Dyad B

Lesson 1 We should kill the gray squirrel to savethe red because they [gray] are eatingall the food. Because the gray squirrelis pertinent anywhere but the redsquirrel lives in coniferous woods.

2 2 We should kill the gray squirrelsto increase the number of redsquirrels because they [the gray]eat the red squirrels food.

Lesson 3 We believe that the government shouldkill some gray squirrels in order tosave the red [squirrel]. Because they[gray squirrels] take the red squirrelsfood and they have been known to striptreesof their bark. Additionally red

squirrels get squirrel pox which is fatalto them, but the gray ones are immuneso none of them are killed by thedisease and this has resulted in thegray squirrel population beingnoticeably higher than that of thereds.

4 2 We believe that the governmentshould kill the gray squirrel.Our evidence for that is thatthe gray squirrel are renownedfor their resistance tosquirrelpox. Also the graysquirrels were introduced

second, so really the redsquirrels are more nativeto this country because they wereoriginally here to begin with.




16/29

Name Talk

Argument

Element

A2 We should kill some gray squirrels but also do abit more than that

Claim

Teacher Why do you say that?A1 If we dont, then the red squirrels are going to

depopulate whatever we do. But if we only killthem [grays] it is just going to go back tosquare one, they will still populate again andthe red squirrels will eventually in the long rundepopulate and the grays will be back

Warrant,Rebuttal,

Claim

Teacher Right. So are you saying then that we are nevergoing to get rid of all the gray squirrels?

A1 No, we need to kind of split them up. So createnature reserves separate for reds

Claim,Warrant

Teacher So are you arguing that we should or we

shouldnt kill the gray squirrel?A2 We should, but only a fair majority but also do a

bit more, not just kill them. So built somenature reserves, take them back to certain areas

Claim, Rebuttal,Warrant

The students from Dyad A during the whole classroom discussion presented an alterna-

tive solution to their initial one, which was to kill the gray squirrel in order to save the red.

Dyad A has improved their argument from Lesson 3, and they changed their claim from kill

some gray squirrels to kill some gray squirrels but also do a bit more, a claim that they

try to explain to the teacher in the episode above. This claim was provided by the studentswithout being challenged by the teacher, and this change in the students argument seems to

derive from an understanding of the data that were presented to them in the learning environ-

ment, data that were suggesting that the gray squirrel might have contributed to the decrease

of the population of the red squirrel, but other factors might also be responsible.

The following is a representative example from the contributions of the second pair

during the whole classroom discussion.

Name Talk Argument Element

B1 We believe that the government should kill the

gray squirrel. Our evidence for that are the graysquirrel are renounced for their resistance tosquirrel pox, killing the red squirrels will boostthe increase in the red squirrel population.Therefore the red squirrel will be lessvulnerable to extinction

Claim,

Multiple pieces of data,

warrant

Teacher So your argument is that you should kill the graysquirrel right?

B1 YeahTeacher And what is your evidence for that? Do you have

any more evidence to support that?B2 That theyare introduced later, so the red squirrels

were here before

Data

Teacher So how is this important?B2 The red squirrels are native Data




17/29

In this part of the whole classroom discussion the second pair presented their final argu-

ment, a Level 2 argument as shown in the transcript above. Even when challenged by the

teacher, the students did not further support their argument, but insisted on the fact that the

red squirrels are an indigenous species, as opposed to the gray squirrel. In this exchange ofideas between the students during the whole classroom discussion it is evident that the stu-

dents from the two pairs have very different arguments. The second pair insisted on the initial

argument (Lesson 1), an argument that was enriched with some pieces of data (i.e., compared

to the argument in Lesson 3), ignored relevant data (i.e., red squirrels die in road accidents,

red squirrels are specific with their food whereas the gray are not), and focused on the fact

that the red squirrels are the indigenous species, and therefore, should be preserved without

further justifying that claim. Therefore, a main finding of this study was that Dyad A im-

proved more in relation to Dyad B, however, what is also important to examine, and the main

purpose of this study, is what were the students characteristics of collaborative argumentation

during the four lessons, and how might the argumentation of the first dyad contributed to the

more successful outcome of their construction of an argument.

The ProcessStudents Characteristics of Collaborative Argumentation

In this section, the analyses of the pairs collaborative argumentation or talk during the

four lessons are presented, identifying the differences in the features of collaborative argu-

mentation between Dyad A and Dyad B. Summarizing the findings from the analysis of the

collaborative argumentation, four substantial differences were identified in how the two dyads

collaborated: (a) Dyad A engaged in exploratory talk/negotiating a shared understanding

while Dyad B mostly engaged in cumulative discussions or reading data from the on-line

learning environment; (b) Dyad A engaged in asking each other questions while Dyad B

rarely did so; (c) Dyad A discussed the structure of their final argument in several episodes

during the second and third lesson while Dyad B only did so once in the first and once in the

third lesson; and (d) the two pairs used different elements of argumentation during the discus-

sions, with Dyad A offering more rebuttals, qualifiers and warrants. The number of elements

of argumentation used by each pair during the lessons are shown in Table 5, and the main

characteristics of collaborative argumentation of the two dyads for the three lessons are sum-

marized in Table 6.

Lesson 4 was not coded for characteristics of collaborative argumentation since during

this last lesson the students presented their final arguments during a whole classroom discus-

sion, and did not collaborate in their pairs. In the section that follows we present episodes for

each one of the dyads that are indicative of each pairs characteristics of collaborativeargumentation.

Table 5

Number of elements of argument during the oral argumentation of the two dyads

Dyad A Dyad B

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3

Claims 16 8 7 10 7 3

Data 14 14 9 14 7 8Warrants 2 0 10 2 3 2Qualifiers 16 0 2 4 0 0Rebuttals 0 0 2 0 0 0




18/29

Dyad A

Engaging in Exploratory Talk and Negotiating a Shared Understanding of the

Data. As shown in Table 6, for the first pair (Dyad A), during the first Argue-WISE lesson

there were 14 instances of negotiating a shared understanding, three instances during the

second lesson, and two during the third lesson. What follows is an example of exploratory

talk/negotiating a shared understanding from the first lesson. In this episode, A1 and A2 are

looking at a table presenting information about the size, habits and eating patterns of the red

and the gray squirrels.

Name Talk

Argument

Element

Argumentation

Characteristic

A1 These [red squirrels] are dying because ofstarvation, because,

Claim

A2 They are eating all the food. Because the graysquirrel is pertinent anywhere but the redsquirrel lives in coniferous woods

Data, Data

A1 Anywhere, thats a good pointA2 So they basically eat the same thing except thatthe

gray squirrel doesnt mind the fact that thehazelnuts arent ripe whereas the red squirreldoes

Data, Warrant Explaining data

A1 So there is the size, they are a lot bigger so theyneed more food

Data

A2 YeahA1 But the gray, as they can live anywhere, they can

find food easilyRebuttal data Explaining data

What is evident in this episode is that the two students engaged in a process of under-

standing the data and making connections between the data in order to come to conclusions.

As seen in the episode above, A1 starts, and then A2 continues the line of thinking, buildingon each others ideas. This episode is characterized as exploratory because the students

engage constructively with the ideas presented, and they built on each others line of thinking.

This was not coded as cumulative because the students respond to each others line of

Table 6

Number of episodes with features of collaborative argumentation for the two dyads

Features of Collaborative

Argumentation

Dyad A Dyad B

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3

Exploratoty/negotiating sharedunderstanding

14 3 2 1 0 1

Dispute 1 0 0 0 0 0Cumulative 3 2 5 2 1 6Asking questions 10 7 11 1 3 0Reading data 10 6 0 15 5 6Discussing structure of assignment 0 6 12 1 0 1Using analogies 1 0 0 0 0 0Explaining data 0 0 0 3 1 0




19/29

thinking (i.e., how they continue each others sentences), evaluating the ideas presented by

their partner (i.e., thats a good point).

The following is another example of how the students in Dyad A negotiated a shared

understanding. This is part of an episode from Lesson 3 in which the students talk about theirfinal argument.

Name Talk

Argument

Element

Argumentation

Characteristic

A1 What are we going to say about bringing red squirrelsback into the south?

Asking questions

A2: I am not sureA1: A fair amount of gray squirrels should be killed. But is

this the way to change the problem in the long ran?Claim Asking questions

A2: Because there will still be gray if we do this WarrantA1: Yes, this wouldnt change the problem in the long ran ClaimA2: So, what are we saying? Asking questionsA1: Split parts and bring red squirrels back to all the parts

they were beforeClaim

A2: Make boundaries? Asking questionsA1: Yes, like a park. Nature reserve WarrantA2: So take gray squirrels out of the habitat theyare and put

them in separate areasWarrant

It is evident in the episode that the students built on each others ideas, and come up with

a new claim after this discussion, which they also present in their final argument. Indeed,

there are only a few instances in which Dyad A engaged in cumulative talk. Instead through-

out the lessons, both A1 and A2 asked each other questions that helped them clarify their

task, understand the data, and finally structure their argument.

Asking Each Other Questions. Dyad A tended to ask each other questions at the begin-

ning of each lesson, while their arguments came up later in the discussion. Below is part of a

cumulative discussion episode from the second lesson in which A1 and A2 were trying to

understand the red and gray squirrels eating habits.

Name Talk

Argument

Element

Argumentation

Characteristic

A2 Red squirrels only eat from coniferous trees DataA1 What else? What else do they eat? Asking questionsA2 Look, here it is [pointing at the computer screen]A1 What should we say about their eating habits? Asking questions

The transcript above shows part of an episode in which the students engaged in cumula-

tive talk, but asked each other questions. In this situation, the questions did not function as a

way to engage with the each others ideas. Other than these instances, both students asked

each other a number of questions which function as a way to monitor their understanding ofwhat each other is saying, and their understanding of the data. This interpretation is supported

by the fact that the episodes that have been identified as negotiating shared understanding

mostly consist of questions.




20/29

Discussing the Structure of the Argument. Another important feature that came out from

the analysis of Dyad As talk, was that the two students engaged in discussing the structure of

their arguments both in Lessons 2 and 3 (see Table 6). This implies that Dyad A students

were thinking about their argument and how to communicate it with their teacher and the

other students, especially during the third lesson in which they were working mainly on

preparing the argument to be presented to the class. An example from the third lesson in

which A1 and A2 discussed the structure of their argument is provided below:

Name Talk

Argument

Element

Argumentation

Characteristic

A1: I know. What we got to do is do that. We got to putevery bit of information in. So we do a page and abit maybe of just key points, and then just write a

huge, big thing saying what we think.

Discussing structureof argument

A2: Ehm, we got to write an argument for it so instead ofjust saying this is this. We need to explain.

Here, A1 suggested that they should include information and key points, and then their

claim, while A2 reminded him that they have to write an argument, and not only information,

adding that they should explain as well.

Dyad B

The argumentation in Dyad B was different compared to the one in Dyad A. More

specifically, the two girls (B1 and B2) rarely engaged in negotiating their understanding, buton the contrary they used most of their time reading pages of evidence provided within

Argue-WISE without talking about the evidence. Hence, the analysis of their talk demonstrat-

ed that they mostly engaged in cumulative talk, while reading the evidence pages, and rarely

engaged in exploratory talk.

Cumulative Talk. A typical example of how B1 and B2 interacted during the lessons is

provided beneath:

Name Talk

Argument

Element

Argumentation

CharacteristicB1 [reading from the screen] The gray squirrel was introduced

in the UK from North America, at the beginning of the19th century, by the Victorians.

Reading data

B2 The red squirrels, what is their body length? 2022 cm Asking questionB1 [reading from the evidence page] A bag of sugar Reading dataB2: That one is heavier [pointing at the gray squirrel on the screen] Explaining dataB1 I know. gray squirrels frequently seen on the ground Reading dataB2 The red prefers to live in coniferous woods Reading dataB1 The gray can live anywhere Reading data

As shown above, the students engaged in reading the data, without questioning or tryingto construct a joint understanding of their implications. The analysis of Dyads B discussions

as presented in Table 6 implies that the two students were not engaged in the process of

discussing and understanding the evidence provided to them, they rarely discussed the




21/29

structure of the argument or asked each other questions. The analysis of their final argument

shows that the evidence provided within the learning environment was not included in their

final argument.

Summarizing the findings from the analysis of the collaborative argumentation, four sub-stantial differences were identified in how the two dyads collaborated: (a) Dyad A engaged in

exploratory talk/negotiating a shared understanding while Dyad B mostly engaged in cumula-

tive discussions or reading data from the on-line learning environment; (b) Dyad A engaged

in asking each other questions while Dyad B rarely did so; (c) Dyad A discussed the structure

of their final argument in several episodes during the second and third lesson while Dyad B

only did so once in the first and once in the third lesson and, (d) the two pairs used different

elements of argumentation during the discussions, with Dyad A offering more rebuttals, quali-

fiers and warrants. More specifically, the students in Dyad A seem to offer more claims

throughout the lessons, with the most claims offered during the first lesson for both pairs

(Table 5). Examining the transcripts to identify the nature of the claims (i.e., see transcripts

above), it is evident that most of the claims provided by both dyads were new ideas, or

possible solutions for the problem that the students were examining (i.e., create nature

reserves, kill the gray). Therefore, the difference in the number of claims between the two

dyads during their argumentation implies that Dyad A provided more ideas and solutions for

the problem they were examining. On the contrary, in terms of argumentation, Dyad B was

mostly coded as providing data, which by looking at the transcripts can be interpreted as

reading data from the learning environment. The two pairs also differ notably in the number

of qualifiers and warrants that they offer, with Dyad B offering less qualifiers overall. Since

the qualifiers specify the condition under which the claim is true, (and are phrases that show

what kind of degree of reliance is to be placed on conclusions), the fact that Dyad A offered

more qualifiers might indicate a better understanding of the information that was provided

from the learning environment, even though further evidence to support this is not available.

This difference in the TAP elements that were identified in the argumentation of the two

pairs, in combination with the characteristics of their interactions can be interpreted as

engagement, from Dyad A, as opposed from Dyad B.

Discussion and Implications

Argumentation, especially collaborative argumentation requires the coordination of dif-

ferent viewpoints or claims, and therefore participants are expected to share and communicate

their ideas, consider alternative ideas, understand the available evidence, and share their un-derstanding with the other participants before presenting their final arguments (Schwarz,

2009; Stein & Miller, 1991). In this study, we have explored how pairs of students work

together during collaborative argumentation in order to understand the characteristics of their

interactions, and therefore try to identify what kind of actions during collaborative argumen-

tation can lead participants to effective argument constructionin essence the impact of argu-

mentation on argument. Our first research question focused on how students working in dyads

co-constructed their written arguments on the socioscientific issue they were studying. Our

goal was to explore possible differences in the quality of the written arguments between the

two dyads, and then explore whether their collaborative argumentation and their talk in their

pairs might explain any differences in the quality of the written argument. Overall, findingsfor the first research question indicate that even though initial arguments of both the Dyad A

and Dyad B were of the same quality and shared the same claim, by the end of the instruction

the two pairs provided quite different arguments, both in terms of the quality and the claims,




22/29

with Dyad A providing better written arguments. This finding is similar to previous studies

(i.e., Bell, 2004; Zohar & Dori, 2003) that have found that not all students in a class improve

their arguments in the same way after specially designed argumentation instruction. On the

contrary some students, or some groups improve more than others, providing higher levelof arguments by the end of the instruction. This discrepancy on how students or groups

of students develop their arguments might be partially attributed to the different cognitive

abilities of the students (Means & Voss, 1996), even though there is no adequate evidence in

the current study to support this claim. Another reason that could explain the discrepancy on

the quality of written arguments of the two groups is the kind of interactions that took place

between the pairs, and this hypothesis is explored by the second research question. The

second research question was concerned with the differences in students characteristics of

collaborative argumentation, and the impact of those characteristics on the written argument.

Given the difference in outcome, can these be attributed to differences in the ways the

students engage with each other in their pairs? We found four differences between the two

pairs in terms of their interaction in the groups, and these differences are discussed in the

section that follows.

Examining the Differences in Argumentation Between the Two Pairs

The first of the differences involves the type of talk that characterized the interactions

of the two pairs. The successful pair, Dyad A engaged in exploratory talk and negotiated

a shared understanding during the lessons, while on the contrary, the less successful pair

engaged in cumulative talk and rarely asked each other questions. The fact that negotiating a

shared understanding leads to successful learning in science has been documented by a num-

ber of studies. For instance, a study by Alexopoulou and Driver (1996), studying groups

versus pairs, showed that in pairs students who negotiated their ideas and collaborated with

others seemed more likely to progress in their physics reasoning (p.1108). Other studies

have shown that exploratory talk and negotiating a shared understanding (Herrenkohl &

Guerra, 1998; Mercer et al., 1999) is a type of talk that is rarely found in the class, but when

found leads to high cognitive gains. In this study, such an interaction led students to progress

in their argumentation and provide better products by the end of the instruction. This kind of

interaction has not been explored in the context of argumentation, and therefore this charac-

terization of successful argumentation as negotiation of meaning is a contribution of this

study.

The second difference between the two pairs talk that might have contributed to the

differences in their written arguments is the fact that Dyad A, the successful pair, engaged inasking each other questions in order to clarify the evidence, or understand the ideas that were

shared with each other. We contend that this feature of the pairs collaborative argumentation

has contributed to their success in providing high quality written arguments, since previous

studies (i.e., Zoller, 1987) show that student questioning, and more specifically higher-order

questioning is an aspect of problem solving, and an important cognitive strategy, since

students questions play a significant role in meaningful learning. Asking questions is consid-

ered a thinking process skill associated with critical thinking (Schirripa & Steiner, 2000)

and therefore also associated with argumentation. Interpreting the function of asking ques-

tions as leading to successful argumentation is supported by the findings of a recent study by

Chin and Osborne (2010b) in which they explored the role of questions during collaborativeargumentation, and found that productive discourse of the more successful groups was

characterized amongst others by the use of questions which focused on the key ideas of the

lesson.




23/29

A third difference between the two pairs in terms of their collaboration was that Dyad A,

which provided higher level of written arguments compared to Dyad B, discussed the

structure of their argument at various episodes in the lessons. This finding suggests that the

students in Dyad A consider this as an important aspect of their task. Talking aboutthe structure of the argument can be considered as a meta-cognitive, or reflective skill, since

the students need to have a deeper understanding of the task and of their argument, in order

to be able to discuss the structure of their argument. Discussing the structure of the argument

as part of the argumentation processes has also been noted in a recent study by Chin and

Osborne (2010a) which showed that the more successful groups made explicit references to

the structure of the argument.

A fourth and final difference between the two pairs was the number of claims proposed

by each one of the pairs. Dyad B, the one who did not improve their final argument, provided

less claims during the four lessons. By carefully examining the claims of the two dyads, it is

evident that these are different ideas put forward by the pairs as solutions to the problem they

were exploring. Consequently, this difference in the number of claims can be explained as a

difference in the number of solutions proposed, with the successful pair providing more sol-

utions for the problem. A similar finding has been documented by Sampson and Clark (2010)

in a study with 1517 students examining a chemistry topic. According to their findings,

individuals in the higher performing groups provided twice as many unique content-related

ideas in their discussions, and as a result had the opportunity to discuss a wider variety of

viewpoints. Therefore, this finding suggests that in some aspects, scientific and socioscientific

argumentation are similar, as for example in that groups that are more successful in their final

product, provide more solutions during their discussion.

The differences in collaborative argumentation between the two pairs appear to be inter-

related. For example, the dyad that was successful in providing high-level written arguments

by the end of the instruction, engaged in all four types of interactions (negotiating a shared

understanding, asking questions, discussing the structure of the argument, proposing multiple

claims) as opposed to the second dyad who rarely did so. While the results of this study are

partly in agreement with the outcomes of other research (i.e., Chin & Osborne, 2010b; Ryu &

Sandoval, 2008), what we have contributed essentially is an evidence-based description of

the characteristics of collaborative argumentation, especially as this is developed within a

socioscientific issue.

The exploratory nature of the study does not allow us to provide conclusions on the

reasons that have let to the differences between the two pairs in terms of their argumentation

and talk. However, based on the findings and the literature we can hypothesize that the differ-ences in the characteristics of argumentation between the two pairs can be attributed to the

engagement of the group with the problem, or the degree of jointly focusing on the topic of

discussion. Our findings suggest that Dyad A engaged more with the topic, an indication of

which is the type of their talk (negotiating of meaning, asking questions), and the number

of different claims and solutions they offered during the lessons. This idea of negotiation of

meaning seems a successful way to engage students in argumentation (Andriessen, Baker, &

Suthers, 2003; Berland & Reiser, 2010) and also aligns with Teasly and Roschelles (1993)

notion of a joint problem space. According to this notion, Collaboration might produc-

tively be thought of as involving a dual-problem space that participants must simultaneously

attend to and develop a content space (consisting of the problem to be solved) and a relationalspace (consisting of the interactional challenges and opportunities) (Barron, 2003, p. 310).

Barron, using the notion of dual-problem space investigated the reasons for variability in

problem solving between triads of different levels, and her analysis suggests that differences




24/29

in performances can be accounted for by the differences in the quantity and quality in the

talk. More specifically, the successful groups discussed all the proposed ideas before rejecting

anything, while less successful groups ignored ideas. According to Barron this might be

considered an indication of the degree to which participants were jointly focused on the sametopic (pp. 347348). Using Barrons idea to interpret the findings of the current study can

lead to the conclusion that the second group in the current study did not engage in a joint

effort to solve the problem under study as opposed to the first dyad that found a joint-space

to discuss the issue they were investigating.

A more recent article by Berland and Hammer (2012), suggests that students frame argu-

mentation in different ways, and therefore they will act in their groups according to the way

they frame argumentation (i.e., to win a discussion, ideas sharing). The idea of framing argu-

mentation is similar to the idea of joint problem spaceevidently in both situations the stu-

dents in the group or pair need to understand the problem in a similar way, and frame it in a

way that will provide the engagement. In this study, the choice of a socioscientific issue as

the context of instruction was based on previous studies that suggested that SSI could engage

students in argumentation. However, our findings suggest that a socioscientific context does

not afford on its own engagement with argumentation. On the contrary, there is a need of

ownership, and engagement that is not automatic and was only evident in one of the pairs. In

order to engage students in socioscientific argumentation the teacher should frame the activity

in a way which makes sense to the group as a whole, and the group needs to identify with the

issue they are discussing (i.e., Evagorou et al., 2012). As Pontecorvo (1993) argues, forms of

discourse become forms of thinking, and, if, students engage in this form of discourse, then

as a consequence, they can begin to appropriate this form of thinking (Mercer, 1996).

The findings of the current study suggest that teachers and curriculum designers should

be aware of the challenges during collaborative argumentation, and be prepared to find ways

to scaffold argumentation, or find ways to create engagement and ownership in the pairs and

groups in order to facilitate the discussions. Therefore, the main implications arising from

this study are: (a) students should be scaffolded towards a feeling of ownership in order to

engage in successful collaborative argumentation, and this does not necessarily happen easier

in an socioscientific context; and (b) specific characteristics of collaborative argumentation

(i.e., negotiating a shared understanding, asking each other questions) need to be scaffolded.

In order to help students engage in collaborative argumentation, and therefore produce better

arguments, we suggest to educators finding ways to help the students frame argumentation

and the problem they are exploring in a way that is productive for each group. For example,

one of the challenges in science classrooms is that many students engage in inquiry activitieswithout understanding the purpose of the activity, and that each activity presents an opportu-

nity to find out something (Kuhn & Pease, 2006). Consequently, in order to address this issue

the teachers should explicitly discuss the purpose of the activity with the class and each group

individually. Additionally, when proposing a socioscientific issue as the context of instruction

the educators and curriculum designers need to understand that the problem is perceived in

different ways by different students (Evagorou et al., 2012), and therefore might be engaging

for some groups, but not for others. Educators and curriculum designers need to identify,

before the instruction, how the students understand the issue, and design the instruction is

such a way that will account for all ideas. Therefore, an implication arising from this issue

for research is an exploration of how students from different backgrounds, either social orcultural, understand and identify with the main socioscientific issues th

journal of research in science teaching volume 50 issue 2 2013 [doi 10.1002_tea.21076] maria...

Documents