Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity

Abstract

Journal of the Learning SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:In this article, we elaborate methodologies to study construction of knowledge in argumentative activities. For this purpose, we report on a quasi-empirical study on construction of knowledge through successive argumentative activities on a controversial issue. A group of 120 fifth grade students participated in successive argumentative activities; some activities involved individuals and some involved collectives. According to a first methodology, construction of knowledge was measured through arguments/outcomes produced. We developed tools for evaluating changes in individual and collective arguments. In the study, we showed the generally beneficial effect of argumentative activities on collective and individual arguments/outcomes. The significant discrepancies between collective and individual arguments suggested that individual students only partly internalized the collectively constructed arguments. We developed a qualitative methodology to refine this hypothesis as well as other hypotheses concerning the interpretation of the quantitative study. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative methodologies for studying argumentation helped identify several mechanisms of construction of knowledge in argumentative activities. In particular, it brought new light on the mediating role of representational tools such as Argumentative Maps or Pro-Con tables.The idea that construction of knowledge emerges from social and cultural contexts is of course not new (Vygotsky, 1986). However, adequate methodologies for evidenc-ing construction of knowledge in rich contexts are difficult to elaborate. For example, although argumentation is recognized as potentially leading to construction of knowledge, experimental studies focusing on the changes that individuals and groups undergo during and after argumentative activities are rare. In this article we attempt to contribute to the elaboration of methodologies for studying construction of knowledge in context, in argumentative activities. We show the methodologies we developed through an experimental study on construction of knowledge through successive argumentative activities. The quantitative measure of construction of knowledge relies on a research setting in which individual argument-outcomes alternated with collective argument-outcomes. The participants were 120 fifth grade students who engaged in argumentative activities on a controversial issue (whether to permit or forbid experiments on animals). Students first completed a questionnaire to express their standpoint individually. They then formed triads and engaged in argumentative talk. At this stage, triads had at their disposal short texts presenting information on the issue. At the end of the conversation, individuals completed the questionnaire again. The triads went on with their argumentative talk and displayed their arguments. In a first group (G1, N1 = 60), triads used a computerized tool, ...

Individual Versus Group Argumentation: Student’s Performance in a Malaysian Context

“…This once again supported the research findings by Erduran et al (2006), McNeil and Martin (2011) and Schwarz et al (2003). The mean score and mastery level for performance on scientific argumentation elements are presented in Table 5.…”

“…7;2014 individual argumentation. This shows group activities foster student's scientific argumentation and improve their performance, which is aligned with the research findings of Erduran, Ardac, and Guzel (2006), McNeil andMartin (2011), andSchwarz, Neuman, Gil, andIlya (2003).…”

Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning

“…These ERs can be constructed individually or by groups of students. Co-construction of ERs may link the benefits of collaborative learning, such as fostering peer support, and critical discussion, to the benefits of constructing ERs (Munneke et al 2007;Schwarz et al 2003;Toth et al 2002). Unfortunately, this has not always been shown to be the case.…”

“…Several studies investigating the effects of different argumentation tools showed representational guidance can influence students' behavior and learning process (Schwarz et al 2003;Suthers 2001;Van Amelsvoort et al 2007). Argumentation tools constitute a specific type of ERs.…”

“…Furthermore, students can draw relationships between elements of the diagram such as causality and dependence relationships. There is evidence that representational guidance influences the effects that argumentation tools have on students' reasoning, use and quality of argumentation, and learning (e.g., Schwarz et al 2003;Suthers and Hundhausen 2003;Van Drie et al 2005). It is important to note that the effects of representational guidance can differ depending on the specific circumstances (e.g., the kind of task to be performed).…”