The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving
Tóm tắt
An important skill in solving problems, especially ill-structured problems, is the production of coherent arguments to justify solutions and actions. Because direct instruction in argumentation has produced inconsistent results and cannot effectively support online learning, we examined the use of online argumentation scaffolds to engage and support coherent argumentation. In this study, we showed that providing a constraint-based argumentation scaffold during group problem-solving activities increased the generation of coherent arguments. The same scaffold further resulted in significantly more problem-solving actions during collaborative group discussions. The effects of the scaffold varied for problem type. Groups that solved ill-structured problems produced more extensive arguments. When solving ill-structured problems, students need more argumentation support because of the importance of generating and supporting alternative solutions. The close relationship between argumentation and problem solving, especially ill-structured problem solving, is significant. The effects of the argument scaffold consistently transferred to the production of arguments during individual problem solving. Students used the familiar argumentation scripts while solving problems individually.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE.International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
Buckingham Shum, S.J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V.M.E., & Hammond, N.V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition.Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 267–300.
Carr, C.S. (1999).The effect of computer-supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) on argumentation skills in second-year law students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Cerbin, B. (1988).The nature and development of informal reasoning skills in college students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 805)
Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D., & de Leeuw, N.A. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts.Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provisions for scales disagreement of partial credit.Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.
Darses, F. (1991). The constraint satisfaction approach to design: A psychological investigation.Acta Psychologica, 78, 307–325.
Fisher, W.R., & Sayles, E.M. (1966). The nature and functions of argument. In G.R. Miller & T.R. Nilsen (Eds.),Perspectives on argumentation (pp. 2–22). Chicago, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Hong, N.S., Jonassen, D.H., & McGee, S. (in press). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.
Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth, (Ed.).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology, Vol 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D.H., & Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(10), 35–52.
Jonassen, D.H., & Remidez, H. (2002, January).Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Boulder, CO.
Kitchner, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing.Human Development, 26, 222–232.
Klemm, W.R., & Snell, J.R. (1996). Enriching computer-mediated group learning by coupling constructivism with collaborative learning.Journal of Instructional Science and Technology,1(2). [Online]. Available: http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/vol1no2/article1.htm
Knudson, R.E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade and sex on students' persuasive writing.Journal of Experimental Education, 59(2), 141–152.
Kuhn, D. (1991).The skills of argument, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lajoie, S.P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lajoie, S.P., & Lesgold, A. (1992). Apprenticeship training in the workplace: A computer coached practice environment as a new form of apprenticeship. In M. Farr & J. Psotka (Eds.),Intelligent instruction by computer: Theory and practice (pp. 15–36). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Learning Research and Development Center. (1996).Advanced cognitive tools for learning. [Online]. Available: http://advlearn/lrdc.pitt.edu/belvedere/index.html.
Leeman, R.W. (1987).Taking perspectives: Teaching critical thinking in the argumentation course. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 147)
McCann, T.M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels.Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62–76.
McGrath, J.E. (1984).Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Meacham, J.A., & Emont, N.C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem solving. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.),Everyday problem solving: Theory and application (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Praeger.
Poole, M.S., & Holmes, M.E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making.Human Communication Research, 22(1), 90–127.
Richard, J.F., Poitrenaud, S., & Tijus, C. (1993). Problem-solving restructuration: Elimination of implicit constraints.Cognitive Science, 17, 497–529.
Sanders, J.A., Wiseman, R.L., & Gass, R.H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking?Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35.
Saunders, K.M. (1994). Law as rhetoric, rhetoric as argument.Journal of Legal Education, 44(4), 566–578.
Simon, D.P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Suthers, D. (1998).Representations for scaffolding collaborative inquiry on ill-structured problems. Paper presented at the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
Suthers, D.D., & Hundhausen, C.D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.),European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–584). Universiteit Masstricht, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Tan, S.C. (2000).Supporting collaborative problem solving through computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Toulmin, S. (1958).The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S.E., Rieke, R.D., & Janik, A. (1984).An introduction to reasoning (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Veerman, A.L., Andriessen, J.E.B., & Kanselaar, G. (1999, December).Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. Paper presented at the conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 99), San Francisco, California.
Voss, J.F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.),Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 74–93). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Voss, J.F., Lawrence, J.A., & Engle, R.A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R.J. Sternberg & P.A. French (Eds.),Complex problem solving (pp. 119–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yeh, S.S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students.Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49–83.