The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory.

Abstract

In this study the effects of argumentation-eliciting interventions on conceptual understanding in evolution were investigated. Two experiments were conducted: In the first, 76 undergraduates were randomly assigned to dyads to collaboratively solve and answer items in evolution; half of them were instructed to conduct an argumentative discussion, whereas control dyads were only asked to collaborate. In the second experiment, 42 singletons participated in one of two conditions: Experimental students engaged in monological argumentation on their own and a confederate's solution in response to prompts read by the confederate, whereas in the control condition they merely shared their solutions. Conceptual gains were assessed on immediate and delayed post-tests. In both experiments, students in the argumentative conditions showed larger learning gains on the delayed post-test than control students. Students in argumentative conditions were able to preserve gains that were obtained immediately following the intervention, whereas control subjects either lost immediate gains (dialogical condition) or did not improve their conceptual understanding at any time (monological condition).

Impact of (QCEJ) Strategy on Developing the Skills of Constructing Scientific Arguments among Middle School Students: The Role of Familiarity with Science Content Knowledge

“…There are significant differences between pre and post test for the experimental group in both argument (1) and argument (2). This result indicates the impact of implementing the suggested strategy "QCEJ" in developing constructing scientific arguments skills.…”

“…The Pearson Correlation is carried out to show the correlations between the examined variables of argument (1) and (2). The three argument construction skills: claim, evidence, and justification correlate positively with each other in both arguments.…”

In Pursuit of Consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation

“…This approach allows students to engage in authentic, but appropriately scaled, practices of scientific communication and reasoning. Moreover, consensus-building through argumentation has the potential to support knowledge construction for individual students as they learn to draw upon and synthesize evidence in order to build stronger arguments (e.g., Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; 2009; Kuhn, 2010;Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997;Limón & Carretero, 1997;Sampson & Clark, 2009;Schwarz, Neuman, & Biezuner, 2000). In fact, as seen in Table 1, nearly all groups that began with dissention moved towards consensus around the correct claim, while discussing the key concept for the activity: competition between species.…”

“…In fact, studies of whether and how argumentation affects an individual's understanding consistently show that becoming aware of challenges and counterarguments is beneficial to students. By confronting counter-arguments, students improve the structure and completeness of their own arguments (e.g., Kuhn, 2010;Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997;Limón & Carretero, 1997) and improve their understanding of the content under study (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007;Sampson & Clark, 2009;Schwarz, Neuman, & Biezuner, 2000). For example, in a study of 10 th graders studying genetics, Venville and Dawson (2010) found that students that engaged in a brief argumentative intervention developed stronger arguments and deeper understandings of the science content than did those students without the intervention.…”

Argumentation in Whole-Class Teaching and Science Learning

“…Although there is scarce research testing these benefits, some empirical evidence on peer interactions partially supports it (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007Howe et al, 2007). Some studies have tested the effect of the argumentative type of whole-class talk on learning, but they are only partially conclusive and do not prove the effect of the discussion of contradictory ideas (Che & She, 2012;Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004;Venville & Dawson, 2010;Wilson, Taylor, Kowalski, & Carlson, 2010;Zohar & Nemet, 2002).…”