Supporting Use of Evidence in Argumentation Through Practice in Argumentation and Reflection in the Context of SOCRATES Learning Environment

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine how students used evidence in argumentation while they engaged in argumentive and reflective activities in the context of a designed learning environment. A web-based learning environment, SOCRATES, was developed, which included a rich data base on the topic of Climate Change. Sixteen 11 th graders, working with a partner, engaged in electronic argumentive dialogs with classmates who held an opposing view on the topic and in some evidence-focused reflective activities, based on transcriptions of their dialogs.Another sixteen 11 th graders, who studied the data base in the learning environment for the same amount of time as experimental-condition students but did not engage in an argumentive discourse activity, served as a comparison condition. Students who engaged in an evidencefocused dialogic intervention increased the use of evidence in their dialogs, used more evidence that functioned to weaken opponents' claims and used more accurate evidence. Significant gains in evidence use and in meta-level communication about evidence were observed after students engaged in reflective activities. We frame our discussion of these findings in terms of their implications for promoting use of evidence in argumentation, and in relation to the development of epistemological understanding in science.

From Theory of Mind to Epistemic Cognition. A Lifespan perspective

“…Subjective epistemic standards, such as agreement with one's own knowledge, are predominant in adolescents' judgments about the trustworthiness of sources (Mason, Boldrin, & Ariasi, 2010) and about the veracity of knowledge claims (Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011). Iordanou and Constantinou (2015) examined how 15-and 16-year-olds argue with peers who hold opposing views on a socio-scientific issue, in a knowledge-rich learning environment. Participants' dialogue transcripts were analyzed in terms of the overall use of evidence, the amount of evidence per argument and per counterargument, the function of evidence use and the accuracy of the evidence employed.…”

“…Studying students engaging in dialogic argumentation over time offers insights regarding how both knowledge and epistemic cognition change. Iordanou and Constantinou (2015), employing the micro-genetic method, a powerful method for understanding epistemic cognitive development (Sandoval, 2014), examined how students use evidence to influence the beliefs of their peers. Eleventh graders, working with a partner, engaged in electronic argumentative dialogues with classmates who held an opposing view on the topic and in some evidence-focused reflective activities, based on transcriptions of their dialogues.…”

Critical Thinking as Discourse

“…Our dialogic method has been successful in enhancing students' argumentative writing (Hemberger, Kuhn, Matos, & Shi, 2017;Kuhn & Crowell, 2011;Kuhn, Hemberger, & Khait, 2016a) -widely regarded as a key educational objective and modality for display of critical thinking -as well as dialogic skills themselves (Crowell & Kuhn, 2014;Iordanou & Constantinou, 2015;Kuhn & Moore, 2015) and the disposition to use them (Kuhn & Zillmer, 2015). What accounts for its success, especially in the domain of argumentative writing, where students of all ages have long been reported to perform poorly (Newell, Beach, Smith, & VanDerHeide, 2011)?…”

Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry

“…Many researchers have emphasized the importance of evaluating evidence and explanations in enhancing the quality of argumentation (Iordanou & Constantinou, 2015;Kenyon & Reiser, 2006;Maloney & Simon, 2006;Osborne et al, 2004;Sampson, Grooms, & Walker, 2011). For example, Kenyon and Reiser (2006) observed that offering students the criteria needed to evaluate evidence and explanations can help them produce better work.…”