Initial Structuring of Online Discussions to Improve Learning and Argumentation: Incorporating Students’ Own Explanations as Seed Comments Versus an Augmented-Preset Approach to Seeding Discussions

Clark, Douglas B.; D’Angelo, Cynthia; Menekşe, Muhsin

doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9159-1

Cited by 46 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, a significantly higher number of quality discussion moves (argumentative broadening and deepening) were found in the chats between the members of the Script dyads (Scheuer et al 2011). From the literature we know that conflict schemes, that is, composing student groups in a way that maximizes opinion conflicts, can have positive effects on the quality of student discussions (Jermann and Dillenbourg 2003;Clark et al 2009). Similarly, structuring collaboration through scripted activity sequences has been shown to be conducive to problem solving and learning (e.g., Rummel and Spada 2005).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conflicting opinions call for explanations, justifications and collaborative conflict resolution -activities that have been shown to be supportive of learning (Nussbaum 2008). Similar tactics aimed at inducing and emphasizing conflict to promote discussions and learning have been used, for instance, in teaching physics (Baker 2003;Clark et al 2009) and instructional design (Jermann and Dillenbourg 2003).…”

Section: Spada 2005)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past two decades a variety of approaches to support argumentation learning in computer-based learning environments have been investigated. We present an approach that combines argumentation diagramming and collaboration scripts, two methods successfully used in the past individually. The rationale for combining the methods is to capitalize on their complementary strengths: Argument diagramming has been shown to help students construct, reconstruct, and reflect on arguments. However, while diagrams can serve as valuable resources, or even guides, during conversations, they do not provide explicit support for the discussion itself. Collaboration scripts, on the other hand, can provide direct support for the discussion, e.g., through sentence openers that encourage high quality discussion moves. Yet, students often struggle to comply with the rules of a script, as evidenced by both the misuse and nonuse of sentence openers. To try to benefit from the advantages of both of these instructional techniques, while minimizing their disadvantages, we combined and experimented with them within a single instructional environment. In particular, we designed a collaboration script that guides student dyads through a process of analyzing, interrelating and evaluating opposing positions on a contentious topic with a goal to jointly generate a well-reasoned conclusion. We compare a baseline version of the script, one that only involves argument diagramming, with an enhanced version that employs an additional peer critique script, implemented with sentence openers, in which student pairs were assigned the roles of a proponent and a constructive critic. The enhanced version of the script led to positive effects: student discussions contained a higher number of elaborative moves and students assessed their argumentation learning more positively.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spada 2005)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Essentially, students were able to describe a common phenomenon: that hot things cool, but did not connect this observation to the specific situation or to the graph. Research shows that KI instruction emphasizing rate of heat flow and thermal equilibrium improves performance on this item (Chang and Linn 2013;Clark et al 2009). …”

Section: Comprehension Itemsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Measuring Graph Comprehension, Critique, and Construction in Science

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpreting and creating graphs plays a critical role in scientific practice. The K-12 Next Generation Science Standards call for students to use graphs for scientific modeling, reasoning, and communication. To measure progress on this dimension, we need valid and reliable measures of graph understanding in science. In this research, we designed items to measure graph comprehension, critique, and construction and developed scoring rubrics based on the knowledge integration (KI) framework. We administered the items to over 460 middle school students. We found that the items formed a coherent scale and had good reliability using both item response theory and classical test theory. The KI scoring rubric showed that most students had difficulty linking graphs features to science concepts, especially when asked to critique or construct graphs. In addition, students with limited access to computers as well as those who speak a language other than English at home have less integrated understanding than others. These findings point to the need to increase the integration of graphing into science instruction. The results suggest directions for further research leading to comprehensive assessments of graph understanding.

show abstract

“…The groups discussed in isolation, and they were interrupted by their teacher only toward the end of the discussion activity. The groups were formed based on the students' answers to an online questionnaire regarding general bioethical issues to increase the possibility of heterogeneous standpoints (Clark, D'Angelo, & Menekse, 2009; Leitão, 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions

Nielsen

2012

Science Education

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a normative pragmatics analysis of students' use of science content in eight socioscientific group discussions about human gene therapy. The specific focus of the paper is on the argumentative role that invocations of science had in the dialectics of the discussions. The analysis suggests that science content occasionally played an informative role in attempts to establish the factual background of parts of the deliberations, but that speakers often invoked science content creatively and selectively in argumentative strategies that aligned with an attempt to frame the issue of the discussion in ways that were favorable for the speaker. The paper aims at explaining how strategies that contained invocations of science worked pragmatically in the dialectical context of the discussions. The findings are discussed in relation to previous findings in the science education community as well as to more general questions pertaining to how science fits into socioscientific discussions in which the arguers deliberate about what to do, not just what is true. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 96:428–456, 2012

show abstract

Initial Structuring of Online Discussions to Improve Learning and Argumentation: Incorporating Students’ Own Explanations as Seed Comments Versus an Augmented-Preset Approach to Seeding Discussions

Cited by 46 publications

References 19 publications

Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

Measuring Graph Comprehension, Critique, and Construction in Science

Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About