Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria...
-
Upload
sandi-danar-cynthia-sari -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria...
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
1/29
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 50, NO. 2, PP. 209237 (2013)
Research Article
Exploring Young Students Collaborative Argumentation Within aSocioscientific Issue
Maria Evagorou1 and Jonathan Osborne2
1Department of Education, University of Nicosia, Cyprus, 46 Makedonitissas Ave,
Nicosia 1700, Cyprus2Stanford Graduate School of Education, 485 Lasuen Mall, Stanford, California
Received 29 August 2012; Accepted 13 December 2012
Abstract: Argumentation has been the emphasis of many studies during the last decade. However,
previous studies have not identified why some students are more successful than others, and what are
students characteristics of argumentation, especially when working collaboratively. The purpose of this
study was to identify how young students construct arguments when working in pairs, and hence identi-
fy those characteristics of their interactions that might lead students to provide better written arguments
in the science classroom. More specifically this study follows a case study design, examining two
different pairs from a class of 12- to 13-year-old students that participated in a specially designed
instructional approach within a socioscientific issue. The two pairs were videotaped for a duration of
four, 50-minute lessons and the transcripts were analyzed in order to identify characteristics of students
interactions during argumentation. The results indicated that one of the pairs constructed high level
written arguments by the end of the instruction, and that the two pairs engaged in different types ofdiscussion. The findings suggest that one of the pairs engaged more with the topic, and that a socio-
scientific context does not afford on its own engagement with argumentation. On the contrary, there is a
need of ownership, and engagement that is not automatic and was only evident in one of the pairs.
Therefore, an implication arising from this issue for research is an exploration of how students from
different backgrounds, either social or cultural, understand and identify with the main socioscientific
issues that are used as part of teaching science, in order to understand how to better design curriculum
that will support engagement of all students with the topic. 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci
Teach 50: 209237, 2013
Keywords: argumentation; collaborative argumentation; socioscientific
Argumentation, the social process, where co-operating individuals try to adjust their
intentions and interpretations by verbally presenting a rationale of their actions (Patronis,Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999, p.747748), has been the emphasis of many studies in the
field of education and the learning sciences during recent years (i.e., de Vries, Lund, &
Baker, 2002; Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Kuhn, Wang, & Li, 2011; Pontecorvo, 1993).
Argumentation is also part of the practice of science for evaluating, refining and establishing
new theories (Duschl, 1990) and is considered a core element of the scientific enterprise.
The importance of argumentation in science education has been documented elsewhere
Contract grant sponsor: Kings College, London.
Correspondence to: Maria Evagorou; E-mail: [email protected]
DOI 10.1002/tea.21076
Published online 10 January 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
2/29
(i.e., Cavagnetto, 2010; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008; Osborne, 2010) but recent edu-
cational reforms have called for a science education that places an emphasis on teaching
science as argument (i.e., Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007). Research in the field of
argumentation in science education, which has emerged in the last decade, has focusedon understanding, developing, and assessing mostly students, and to a less extent teachers
arguments (Bell, 2004; Brem & Rips, 2000; Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Jimenez-
Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Sandoval, 2003; Schauble, Glaser, Raghavan, &
Reiner, 1991).
Even though argumentation is an important aspect of the scientific enterprise, and has
been studied extensively in science education (e.g., Bell, 2004; Erduran et al., 2004;
Herrenkohl & Guerra, 1998; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002; Sandoval, 2003;
Sandoval & Reiser, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), it rarely occurs in the science classrooms
(Newton, Driver, and Osborne). Classroom practices do not promote argumentation as part of
the science discourse, and even when they do, students find it difficult to engage in dialogic or
collaborative argumentationeither in whole classroom (Erduran et al., 2004), or group dis-
cussions (Kuhn, Goh, Iordanou, & Shaenfiel, 2008; Sampson & Clark, 2008), unless specifical-
ly scaffolded by the learning environment (e.g., Bell, 2004; Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000)
and the teacher (Berland & Reiser, 2010; McNeill & Pimentel, 2010; Newton, Driver, &
Osborne, 1999; Sadler, 2009). Previous studies show that when presented with a topic on
which to argue, students find it difficult to collect the evidence that can be used to support their
claim (Bell, 2004); often insist on their original claim even though their evidence might con-
tradict it (Evagorou, Jimenez-Aleixandre, & Osborne, 2012; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-
Munoz, 2002); do not provide adequate evidence (Sandoval & Milwood, 2005); and find it
difficult to rebut an argument or claim provided by other students (Cavagnetto, Hand, &
Norton-Meier, 2010). More recently, studies in argumentation in science education have also
focused on the exploration of the progress of students argumentation in the class (Berland &
Reiser, 2010), the patterns of classroom argumentationhow argumentation develops in a
classroom and its characteristics (McNeill & Pimentel, 2010), developed a learning progression
for argumentation (Berland & Mcneill, 2010), and explored the characteristics of collaborative
argumentation which takes place in groups (Ryu & Sandoval, 2008; Sampson & Clark, 2009).
What has been gained from the aforementioned studies in argumentation is an under-
standing of the difficulties that the learners face when they try to construct their arguments,
either scientific or socioscientific, which can potentially support practice by helping to design
more effective learning environments. However, the argument we attempt to put forward in
this article is that although the body of research in the area of argumentation is growing,numerous questions need more attention, especially questions pertaining to the interaction in
the micro-level of the groups, which take place during collaborative argumentation, and the
reasons which might lead some students in being more successful in providing high quality
arguments when working in groups. We argue that by exploring the characteristics of the
interactions in pairs or groups during collaborative argumentation, and comparing them to the
final outcome of the groups (the argument or product) we can better understand ways in
which groups should be scaffolded during argumentation lessons in order to improve both the
process of argumentation and the product (their arguments), and hence, their ability to make
connections to their existing knowledge schemata (von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008). What we
attempt to show is that as argumentation is a social process, what still needs more attention isthe impact of the process of collaborative argumentationwhat takes place in groups or pairs
when they work together to construct a group argument (Kuhn et al., 2008)on their product
(written argument). By exploring the relationship of the process and product of argumentation,
210 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
3/29
and identifying the characteristics of the successful collaborative argumentation (as judged by
the final quality of written argument) we can potentially design learning environments which
will scaffold those characteristics during the collaboration of groups in argumentation lessons,
and therefore support more successful argumentation which is the goal of recent reforms inscience education (Duschl et al., 2007). As Osborne (2010) states, [. . .] we need to under-
stand in greater detail how argumentation produces learning and what features of learning
environments produce the best arguments among the learners (p. 466). Exploring this area
can potentially help us as educators, researchers, and policy makers to understand why some
students improve their arguments, while others do not, and design more effective learning
environments that can potentially foster the collaboration that will improve argument and
argumentation.
Therefore, the issues that we seek to explore in this study are: (a) what are the characteristics
of collaborative argumentation of two pairs of 12- to 13-year-old students during a sequence of
socio-scientific lessons, and (b) what is the impact of the collaborative argumentation on the
students written argument (final product). We begin by defining the various theoretical constructs
on which this study draws, and present an argument for the importance of such a study.
Theoretical Perspectives
As stated earlier, argumentation has been explored extensively in science education, but
still several questions remain around how to better support students in this important scientific
practice. In order to better support our argument that there is a need to explore the influence
of the argumentative process on argument (the product), in this section we attempt to unpack
the main theoretical constructs present in our work, namely argumentation, collaborative
argumentation, classroom talk, and also justify the problem of this study.
Argumentation and Collaborative Argumentation
Language is central in everyday life, or as Resnick, Michaels, and OConnor (2010) place
it, language is, historically and individually, the foundation of being human, and talkdirect
exchange between humans who can attribute intentionality and understanding to each other
is the foundational act of language (p.163). Therefore language and talk enable us to under-
stand the world around us, communicate with peers, express ideas, and develop knowledge.
Other than language being central in everyday life, it is also the primary tool for communica-
tion in the classroomthe tool used to reflect upon our thoughts, and share our experiences
with others (Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004). Yet as Alexander (2005) argues
discussion and dialogue are the rarest yet the most cognitively potent elements in the basicrepertoire of classroom talk (p.30).
Argumentation is a specific form of talk that can enable students to communicate in the
classroom, and help them to view science as an epistemological and social process in which
knowledge claims are generated, adapted, reorganized, and, at times, abandoned (Lawson,
2003; Lederman, 1992). According to Toulmin (1958), the term argument refers to the set of
claims, data, warrants, and backings that contribute to the content of an argument. For other
authors argumentation is viewed as a verbal, either written or oral, and social activity aimed
at justifying or defending a standpoint for an audience (i.e., van Eemeren et al., 1996) and
refers to the process of assembling the components of an argument. In this mode, argumenta-
tion is used as a process of social construction of knowledge, in which people collectivelydiscuss and decide on the construction of shared social knowledge. Dialectical or dialogical
argumentation requires the coordination of different perspectives, and therefore participants
are expected to communicate their viewpoints, consider assumptions to their personal theories
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 211
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
4/29
and rethink their original ideas based on the new information (Schwarz, 2009; Stein & Miller,
1991). In our study we use Toulmins framework as the main theoretical framework to guide
our work, but we also view argumentation, especially collaborative argumentation, as the
social construction of knowledge in which the learners are expected to share ideas, questionassumptions and restructure their existing knowledge schemata based on the interactions in
their groups. Additionally, since in our study the students are discussing a socioscientific
issue, we also see argumentation as the process of exploring ethical issues, a process which
involves moral judgment about issues of scientific concern. Socioscientific issues represent
those social issues and problems that are conceptually influenced by science and require the
integration of science concepts and processes (Sadler, Barab, & Scott, 2007) with issues of
ethics, costs, and values.
Central to our work is the construct of collaborative argumentation, and with this term
we refer to the dialogic argumentation that takes place in groups of students when they are
asked to work together on the common task of constructing and presenting an argument.
Therefore, collaborative argumentation can be viewed as similar to dialogic argumentation,
with the exception that in collaborative argumentation the emphasis is on the process of
argumentation which takes place during the collaboration in a group, without necessarily the
presence of a teacher. Therefore, collaborative argumentation is different from dialogic argu-
mentation since collaborative argumentation only takes place with a group of people, while
dialogic argumentation can either be with a group, or intellectual (Schwarz, 2009). This is
similar to collaborative learning which can be viewed as the process of engaging in a mutual
discussion, or as the shared engagement of people in an effort to solve a problem
(Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & OMalley, 1996). Based on the aforementioned definition, col-
laboration is distinguished from cooperation in that in cooperative work there is division of
the task among the participants, whereas in collaboration the task as whole is completed by
all members of the group (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Even though collaborative argumenta-
tion needs more attention in the field of science education (i.e., Kuhn et al., 2008; Ryu &
Sandoval, 2008; Sampson & Clark, 2008, 2009), collaborative learning has been the subject
of much research, especially in the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) com-
munity (i.e., Andriessen, 2005). Studies in collaborative learning in the past have focused on
establishing parameters for effective collaboration (i.e., age, sex, cognitive ability of the stu-
dents in groups). For example, a number of studies suggest that groups of learners with simi-
lar abilities seem to learn better than groups of widely varying abilities (i.e., Hogan, Nastasi,
& Pressley, 1999; Light, 1993), while others suggest that mixed-ability groups are better, and
in these groups the low-ability students benefit the most from interacting with the high abilitystudents (i.e., Zohar, 2008). Since many parameters were not controlled (i.e., age, sex, abili-
ties of participants) making it difficult to decide which was important (Webb, 2009), more
recent studies are instead moving towards understanding the conditions under which collabo-
rative learning is effective. However, collaborative learning, in a similar way as classroom
talk and argumentation, when appropriately scaffolded, does lead to better learning outcomes
(Barron, 2000; Webb, Enders, & Lewis, 1986; Webb & Palinscar, 1996), and that students
perform better when working in groups (Azmitia, 1988; Barron, 2003). According to Hogan
et al. (1999), in one of their studies, the more the peers talked in the groups about conceptual
issues, the higher the reasoning levels they achieved, which suggests that the ability to elabo-
rate each others ideas was associated with more sophisticated reasoning. This finding is simi-lar to the work by Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes (1999) and Resnick et al. (2010), whose
studies in discourse suggest that when students explicitly discuss each others ideas then the
reasoning gains are higher.
212 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
5/29
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
6/29
between claims and data through justifications, or the evaluation of knowledge claims in light
of evidence, either empirical or theoretical (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008), while
socioscientific argumentation depends not only on knowledge of science, but also on the
application of moral and ethical values, and personal identity (i.e., Evagorou, 2011; Evagorouet al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012; Oliveira, Akerson, & Oldfield, 2012). Therefore, one of the main
differences between scientific and socioscientific argumentation, is that in the latter there are
no clear-cut solutions, and the proposed solutions cannot be fully determined by empirical or
theoretical evidence (Sadler, 2011).
Even though SSI argumentation has been the focus of many studieswhich have
revealed the various difficulties that the students have when arguing within such contexts
using an SSI context to explore the characteristics of collaborative argumentation, and explore
the impact of the process on the product, has not been explored to our knowledge.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
A more comprehensive approach (i.e., longer argumentation interventions, in authentic
classroom settings) on how students work together when studying a socioscientific issue, and
the kind of interactions that were shared during this argumentative collaboration has not been
reported in any of the previous studies. Therefore, what is still missing in the field of collabo-
rative argumentation, especially within an SSI context is: (a) an exploration of the features of
successful collaborative argumentation in the science classroom in this context; (b) an explo-
ration of the impact of successful collaborative argumentation on students argumentative
product; and, (c) an exploration of students characteristics of collaborative argumentation
during a longer period of time in the actual classroom. In addition, our study sought to
explore how pairs worked together during an argumentation sequence, and identify aspects of
their collaborative argumentation that can help us inform the design of argumentation learn-
ing environments. More specifically the main purpose of our study was to identify the charac-
teristics of 12- to 13-year-old students collaborative argumentation when they engaged with
a socioscientific issue and are supported by an online learning environment. The second re-
search question emerged after the initial data analysis, which revealed that one of the pairs,
was more successful than the other in terms of the quality of their written arguments. Thus,
the research questions were:
(1) When working in dyads, how do students co-construct their written arguments on
the socioscientific issue they are studying?
(2) What is the influence of collaborative argumentation on students argumentativeproduct, and hence what are the differences between the more and less successful
pairs?
Methods
This case study examined the characteristics of students collaborative argumentation that
took place in their pairs (dyads) and their impact on argument, while working on a socio-
scientific issue, for a period of four, 50-minute lessons. A learning environment was designed
in order to create the conditions that would allow the students to participate in socioscientific
argumentation (i.e., time for the students to discuss their ideas in pairs, prompt questions to
support the students during their discussion and a problem that would engage them in mean-ingful conversations). Inevitably argumentation that emerged in that class was influenced by
both the design principles incorporated in the learning environment (which is described in
detail in the section that follows) and the general culture of the class (i.e., students identities
214 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
7/29
and previous experiences, teachers usual teaching practices). This study is based on the
assumption that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds
(Merriam, 1998, p. 6), and is a case study of two pairs engaging in argumentation. A case
study according to Yin (2003) is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporaryphenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon
and context are not clearly evident (p.13), suggesting that the contextual conditions may be
highly pertinent to the phenomenon of study and it is important to study them. Implementing
a case study design allows the researcher to explore more aspects of the problem, and theo-
rize about multiple variables. A case study is a logical model of proof that allows the
researcher to draw inferences concerning causal relations among the variables under investi-
gation (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992, p. 7778). According to what theoretical positions
one embraces, the group or pair can either be viewed as comprising of independent cognitive
systems exchanging messagesmaking the individual the unit of analysisor as a single
cognitive unitmaking the pair or group the unit of analysis (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). In
this study, we assume the shared cognition approach according to which the environment is
an integral part of the processes that are taking place in the group, and learning is considered
context-dependent.
In order to account for the credibility of this studymaking sure that the study is
measuring what it claims it does (Creswell, 1998)the researcher spent considerable time
in the classroom observing the teaching and learning process, and talking to the students
during the lesson in order to become familiar with the class. Additionally, more than one
source of data was collected (videos of paired discussions, students written arguments during
the lessons, students written arguments before and after the implementation, observation
notes from the whole classroom discussion) to address each of the research questions and so
that the data could be triangulated (Patton, 1990). Finally, all of the coding categories were
discussed with a third researcher that read part of the data.
The Participants
Two dyads were selected from a larger group of 28 students that took part in a study that
examined the impact of a specially designed learning environment, supported by technology,
on students socioscientific argumentation. The students in the study attended a private school
located in the south of the United Kingdom. These students were drawn from a class that was
characterized by their teacher as above average achievers, something that is also supported by
the students Cognitive Ability Test (CAT)a test that provides a picture of standard general
abilities in language, mathematics, and science. Choosing students that are above averageachievers was of importance to our study, since our goal was to explore students character-
istics of collaborative argumentation, and therefore we wanted students that had more chances
of engaging in this process. Based on findings from previous studies, higher ability students
have more chances of engaging in argumentation (Zohar & Dori, 2003). Thus, the cases in
this situation might be considered optimal cases in order to understand how collaboration
supports argumentation in the absence of other confounding issues (Yin, 2003). Furthermore,
the students come from an area where social and economic conditions are relatively favor-
able, their ethnic classification is white British, and none of the students had any previous
experience with argumentation. Ten students were male and 18 were female, and they all
indicated that they spoke English as their first language at home. The students ranged in agefrom 12 to 13.
Only two dyads were chosen from the class due to time constraints and practical con-
cerns (i.e., only one of the researchers could be in the classroom at the time to video-tape,
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 215
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
8/29
and not all parents signed the consent forms for their children to be video-tapped). The choice
of the pairs due to these limitations was proposed by the teacher based on what she thought
would be pairs of students that will engage with the learning environment. According to the
teacher, the two proposed dyads were students who talked frequently in the class, and had
more chance of staying on task. These students did not have any special skills when it comes
to the use of technology, or experiences with argumentation. Table 1 below presents a sum-
mary of the students characteristics based on: (a) their Cognitive Ability Test (CAT) results,
and (b) their written argumentation as measured by a pre-assessment tool administered before
the instruction.
The Cognitive Ability Test is a widely used test in UK schools and serves as indicator
for the outcomes of the university entrance exams. According to the institution that provides
the Cognitive Ability Test, students with CAT scores above 127 are considered of very high
ability, between 119 and 126 of high ability, between 112 and 118 are considered above
average ability, and between 89 and 111 are considered of average ability. In the argument
pre-assessment test A1, A2, and B2 have scores above average. The argument assessment
was administered to all students by their teacher before the instruction and took a whole
session to complete (50 minutes). The average score on the argument pre-assessment for the
whole class was 13.3/20 (Evagorou, 2009), and the test was based on Toulmins (1958)
framework of argumentation and used the levels proposed by Erduran et al. (2004).
The choice of pairs over groups in this study was suggested to the teacher by the first
author, and the teacher agreed and accepted to follow this way of working in her class, even
though she would usually have grouped them into fours. Even though some studies show that
groups of four students tend to be more productive than pairs (e.g., Alexopoulou & Driver,
1996), it was decided to organize the students in pairs as for the largest part of the lessonthey were working with a computer, for which pairs would make it easier. Additionally, we
were aware that other studies suggest that pairs are better because students cannot withdraw
and leave the responsibility of discussion to other members (i.e., Webb & Palinscar, 1996).
Furthermore, these pairs were different because one was a mixed gender dyad and the second
a female dyad. Both pairs were based consisted of friends. The decision to allow students to
form pairs based on friendship, and not be assigned by the teacher, is based on evidence from
previous studies (i.e., Alexopoulou & Driver, 1996; Hogan et al., 1999), which shows that
friendship groups are better in collaboration than groups assigned by teachers, that the best of
single sex groups did not engage in collaboration in mixed pairs (Tolmie & Howe, 1993), and
single-sex groups function better than mixed groups (also see Bennett, Hogarth, Lubben,Campell, & Robinson (2010) for an extended review). Since the purpose of this study was to
examine the characteristics of students collaborative argumentation, pairs were chosen that
were more likely to engage in the practice of argumentation.
Table 1
Cognitive ability and argumentation results for the two dyads
Gender Science CAT English CAT Maths CAT
Argumentation
Pre-AssessmentDyad A
Student A1 Male 112 115 117 16/20Student A2 Female 119 138 123 15/20
Dyad BStudent B1 Female 108 104 104 11/20Student B2 Female 120 115 122 15/20
216 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
9/29
Context
In order to engage students in socioscientific argumentation, an online learning environ-
ment, Argue-WISE, was designed and used. Argue-WISE is designed within the WISE
(Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) platform (Linn, Bell, & Davis, 2004) and makesuse of both knowledge representation and discussion based tools. Such a technology-enhanced
environment provides scaffolds for argument construction by making thinking visible, making
the structure of argument construction explicit, and by structuring both peer to peer and group
discussion. One of the main goals of Argue-WISE was to implement a learning environment
to enhance young students argumentation skills within the context of a controversial, socio-
scientific topic and to evaluate the way in which students arguments develop.
The design of Argue-WISE is based on project-based learning (Krajcik, Blumenfeld,
Marx, Bass, & Fredricks, 1998) and the driving question of the learning environment was:
Whether the UK government should kill the gray squirrels in order to save the indigenous
red. Argue-WISE consists of four, 50-minute lessons, in which the students have to work inpairs in order to study the problem and find evidence within the learning environment to
support their argument (Evagorou & Osborne, 2007). The two dyads were video-taped during
the four, 50-minute lessons that took place in a computer lab at their school. Before introduc-
ing students to argumentation, all 28 students completed an argument pre-assessment test
that was administered by the teacher. A week later the teacher introduced argumentation
(50-minute session) using a lesson that she designed in collaboration with the first author.
During this introductory session the teacher introduced the claim: Boys are cleverer than
girls in science, and challenged the students to discuss it. The purpose of this session was to
introduce the students to the elements of argumentation (i.e., evidence to support claim, chal-
lenge evidence) and model the structure of a good argument. Even though the design of thisstudy was informed by Toulmins (1958) framework, the teacher did not explicitly teach its
elements. The introductory lesson was video-recorded but data from this session are not pre-
sented in this study. Each one of the four lessons is described in detail in the section that
follows. It is important to note that during Lessons 13 the students worked in their pairs
trying to complete the task presented to them through Argue-WISE. During this time
the teacher responded to questions by the pairs, but did not engage the classroom in whole-
classroom discussions, and did not provide any information other than the one within the
learning environment. Lesson 4 was the whole classroom discussion during which the teacher
coordinated the presentation of the dyads arguments.
Lesson 1: During the first lesson the teacher introduced students to WISE and
Argue-WISE and provided usernames and passwords for each one of the self-selected dyads.
The students worked in their pairs in front of the computers to find out the problem they
would study (If the government should kill the gray squirrel in order to save the red), to
state their claim before familiarizing with the problem and then go through a number of
activities to help them understand the ecology of the red and the gray squirrel and how the
two differ.
Lesson 2: In the second lesson, the students worked again in the same pairs in Argue-
WISE studying information regarding the decrease in the red squirrel population and the
causes of the change in the numbers of the population. Additionally, they studied historical
data sets informing them about the population of the red squirrel before the introduction
of the gray. During the session the students were supported by prompt windows within
Argue-WISE and SenseMakera scaffolding tool within WISE designed to help students
coordinate evidence and claim (Bell, 2004).
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 217
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
10/29
Lesson 3: During this session the students worked in their pairs in front of the computer
and studied ways to maintain the red squirrel population as well as real stories of how people
in various areas in the UK acted in order to save the red squirrel. Finally, the students in their
pairs completed their arguments and submitted them on-line.Lesson 4: During this last lesson the students were asked to present and discuss their
arguments during a whole classroom discussion. The teacher facilitated the whole classroom
discussion.
The Role of the Teacher
The teacher, Heather, had no previous experience with argumentation or WISE, and was
briefed before the implementation as to the theoretical framework that informed the design of
Argue-WISE, and issues pertaining to argumentation. Heather was not specifically instructed
on how to teach argumentation since one of the purposes of the overall project was to explore
the impact of the technology on students argumentation, hence, she enacted the learning
environment based on her understanding of what was discussed with the first author, and her
usual instructional practices. The analysis of the whole class discussions are presented elsewhere
(see Evagorou & Dillon, 2011), and suggest that the teacher supported and encouraged discussion
in the classroom during the whole classroom discussion, her questions were facilitating the dia-
logue, providing positive feedback to the students, while at the same time helping them to built
on each others ideas and understand the structure of an argument. Additionally, Heather used
most of the time for pair discussions (Lessons 13), and tried to model argumentation by
discussing evidence and its validity, and how it could, or could not, support claims.
Data Analysis
The conversations that took place within the dyads, and the whole classroom discussions
were video recorded and transcribed. Additionally, all written arguments that the pairs had to
submit within Argue-WISE in each one of the lessons were also recorded. The analysis of the
data focused on: (a) the quality of the written arguments as measured by the framework pro-
posed by Erduran et al. (2004); (b) the quality of the argumentation during the discussions in the
pairs as measured by the framework proposed by Erduran et al. (2004); and (c) the character-
istics of the collaborative argumentation. The following steps were utilized during the analysis:
Step 1: In order to evaluate the quality of the arguments (product) all written arguments
in each one of the lessons were analyzed using the modified version of Toulmins
Argumentation Pattern (TAP) as proposed by Erduran et al. (2004). The authors suggest the
following levels for arguments, with Level 1 arguments indicating the lowest quality, andLevel 5 arguments the highest.
Level 1: Arguments that are a simple claim versus a counter-claim or a claim versus a
claim.
Level 2: Consist of a claim versus a claim with either data, warrants, or backings but
which does not possesses any rebuttals.
Level 3: Consists of a series of claims or counter-claims with either data, warrants, or
backings with the occasional weak rebuttal.
Level 4: Arguments with a claim with a clearly identifiable rebuttal. Such an argument
may have several claims and counter-claims.
Level 5: An extended argument with more than one rebuttal.
However, Level 4 and Level 5 arguments can more often be found in conversations when
the arguer is forced to rebut another argument or claim, therefore oral argumentation. Even
218 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
11/29
though we are aware that TAP is more appropriate for oral arguments, especially since it is
more difficult to offer rebuttals in written arguments (i.e., Erduran, 2008), it was decided that
TAP will be used both for oral and written arguments for the sake of consistency, to allow us
to compare the written and oral arguments of the pairs.Step 2: In order to evaluate the characteristics of collaborative argumentation, the tran-
scripts from all four lessons were read line-by-line by the first author, and off-task conversa-
tion was removed. Off-task talk was interpreted as talk towards a goal other than generating
claims and evidence for the topic they were exploring. For example, text of students talking
about other lessons would be considered off-task. The remaining text was: (a) open coded in
NVivo, using conversational turns of the partners in the pairs; (b) coded using the frameworks
proposed by Herrenkohl and Guerra (1998) and Mercer et al. (1999); (c) recoded using
merged codes, an outcome of step (b); and (d) the transcripts were read again twice by the
first author to isolate meaningful episodes that related to issues pertaining to the purposes of
the study. Episodes were defined as smaller units of coherent interaction within events
(Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 57), and due to the exploratory nature of the research ques-
tions all on-task interactions were considered episodes. A new episode was coded as such
when a new idea or a new claim was put forward by one of the students. Thirty-one such
episodes were identified for the first pair, and 20 for the second pair for all the lessons. The
whole classroom discussion sections of the transcript were considered as episodes as well,
and were coded for argumentation only (as described in Step 3).
This iterative analysis undertaken with the aid of the second author led to the codes
presented in Table 2. However, the main codes: negotiating a shared understanding/explorato-
ry talk, dispute talk and cumulative talk are mutually exclusive. So for example, an episode
that was coded as cumulative could not have been coded as dispute as well. The other
codes presented in Table 2 (namely using analogies, discussing structure, explaining data,
questioning data, asking questions) are not mutually exclusive with any of the previous cate-
gory of codes (i.e., the Mercer codes). For example, as we observed during our analysis, in
some of the episodes that were coded as negotiating a shared understanding, part of the
episode was coded as asking questions. The code asking questions was also identified in
episodes that were not coded as negotiating a shared understanding. During the first round
of analysis a part of the transcripts (20%) was coded by a second researcher with the initial
agreement of 70%, that reached 90% after discussing the categories. During the final round of
analysis, the first and second author coded the transcripts independently and discussed the
analysis until an acceptable level of agreement was reached.
Step 3: In order to identify the elements of argument in students oral argumentation thesame framework as in Step 1 was applied (Erduran et al., 2004) to the episodes from all four
lessons. Two raters coded the episodes independently to identify the following codes and then
agreement was reached.
Claim: The conclusion whose merits are to be established.
Data: Information provided within the learning environment that can be used to support
or contradict a claim.
Warrant: The reason that is used to justify the connections between the data and
conclusion.
Qualifier: Specifies the condition under which the claim is true, and are phrasesthat show what kind of degree of reliance is to be placed on conclusions, given the
arguments available to support them.
Rebuttal: Specifies the conditions in which the claim is not true.
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 219
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
12/29
Table2
Argumentationcharacteristicsofpaireddiscussions
DiscourseCode
Definition
Example
Maincategories
Exploratorytalk/
negotiatinga
shared
understanding
Thestudentsinthepairengagedcriticallybutconstructivelyw
itheachothers
ideasorwhentheid
easofferedbyonestudentwerediscu
ssed.This
categorycaninvolvequestionasking,butitcanalsoinvolveproductive,
argumentativeinteractionsinwhichindividualsareworkingtoresolve
disputes,withoutne
cessarilyaskingquestions
A1:These[redsquirrels]aredyingbecauseofstarvatio
n,because(.)
A2:Theyareeatingallthefood.(.)
Becausethegray
squirrelispertinentanywherebut
theredsquirre
llivesinconiferouswoods
A1:Anywhere,thatsagoodpoint
A2:Sotheybasicallyeatthesamethingexcept
A1:Thegraycan
liveanywhere
A2:Yeah.Sotheybasicallyeatthesamethingexceptthatthegray
squirreldoesn
tmindthefactthatthehazelnutsaren
tripe.
Whereasthere
dsquirreldoes
A1:Sothereisth
esize,plustheyarealotbiggerso
theyneedmorefood(.)
A2:Yeah
Disputetalk
Definedbyanexplicit
challengeofaclaimputforthbyanotherparticipant
B1:Girlsareclev
ererthanboys.
(i.e.,disagree,nottr
ue)
B2:Idontagree
B1:Theyare
Cumulativ
etalk
Thespeakersagreewitheachotherbut:withoutdebate,and
theyshareand
A2:Thegraynee
dsmorefoodbutbecausethereismoreofthe(.)
buildinformationin
anuncriticalway
A1:Therearesomany(.)Ireckonifyoudidntdoanyth
ingwithinlike
50yearsyouw
ouldnthaveasmanyredsquirrelsas
(.)
A2:[Shakingher
head]Yeah.
A1:Therewould
be(.)
A2:Ibelievetheywoulddecrease
A1:Theywouldhavetodosomething
A2:Thegraysqu
irrelswouldincreasesotherewouldntbesomany
squirrelsexcep
tgraysquirrels
A1:Theyarenot
thenativesquirrels
A2:TheyarefromNorthAmerica
A1:So(.)itsgoo
d.
A2:Theyaredifferentinsizebuttheyarenotreallydifferentintheir
eatinghabits
(Continued)
220 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
13/29
Table2
(Continued)
DiscourseCode
Definition
Example
Subcategories
Askingqu
estions
Theyaskeachotherquestionsaboutthedata,oranyotherquestionthatis
relevanttowhattheyarediscussing.
A2:OK,ahm,squirrelpoxhadbeenprovedthatithas
moreeffecton
theredsquirrels?
Questioningdata
Theyengageinquestioningthevalidityor
B2:Whatsfourthgrade?
trustworthinessofth
edata
B1:Ithinktheyare10[yearsold].[readingfromtheevid
encecards]for
boysandgirlsin17countries.Theresultsarefrom20
01.Wow!That
isoutofdate
B2:Itsoutofdate
Explainingdata
Whenthestudentstry
toexplainthedatatoeachother
B2:Yeah.Thereisonlylikeonethatthegirlsarehigher.OnlytheCzech
Republic
B1:SoitsSingaporeand,whereisit?
B2:CzechRepub
lic.AndthentheUnitedStatesitisth
esame,3.3.
B1:SoitisSin
gapore,CzechRepublic
B2:WhereisCzechRepublic?
B1:Here[pointin
gatdatatable]
Readingdata
TheyengagedinreadingthedatafromArgue-WISE
Discussing
structure
Thestudentsintheirpairsarediscussingthestructureofthe
irfinal
A1:WeshoulddotheargumentasinhowGalileodidthis
submission/argumen
t
A2:Ha[laughing
]
A1:Twopeopletalking
A2:No
A1:Comeon,tha
twouldbe(.)Galileo,Galeli(.).Wec
oulddothatin
twoarguments
Usinganalogies
Studentsuseanalogies
tounderstandtheirdata,ortoexplain
thedatato
anotherstudents
A1:Wow,thepop
ulationofBritaininsouthis16millionandthatsnot
muchcompare
dtoothercountries
A2:Yeah
A1:Thatsquite[inaudible]itsprobablyabout(.)howmanypeoplein
thisschool?It
sabout3,000.Includingteachers.Andthatslots
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 221
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
14/29
The two raters read the transcripts independently to identify the argument that was put
forward in the conversation, then identify the elements of argument as presented in Toulmins
(1958) framework, and finally assign a level to the argument using Erduran et al.s (2004)
framework. More specifically, each one of the conversational turns in each one of the epi-sodes was read in order to identify whether it could be coded using the above codes. The
whole classroom episodes were also coded using the TAP. For the purposes of this article
only sections of the episodes of whole classroom discussion in which the students of the two
pairs participated were used. The two raters then met to discuss any variation in coding, and
any differences between the two raters that could not be reconciled were brought to a third
researcher who made a decision after hearing the two arguments.
Step 4: In this step, the analysis from the previous steps was compared and contrasted.
More specifically, after identifying the levels of written argumentation in Step 1 for each
group, the analysis from Step 2 was reread to compare the kind of argumentation that took
place in the pairs with their final product. A timeline was also created to be able to compare
the discussion in the pair with when their product was submitted. A similar process took
place with comparing findings from Step 2 and Step 3.
Findings
The analysis described in this section examined students collaborative argumentation dur-
ing a socioscientific lesson, and explored whether there were any differences in the quality of
the pairs written arguments, and any differences in students characteristics of collaborative
argumentation. To begin with, Table 3 presents the quality of the pairs written arguments
during the four argumentation lessons.
Argument Product
A substantial difference between the two dyads at the end of the instruction, as shown in
Table 3, was the quality of the written arguments, with Dyad A students providing Level 3
and Level 4 arguments by the end of the lessons, and Dyad B providing only Level 2 argu-
ments throughout the four lessons (Table 3). Therefore, Dyad A proved to be good in written
argument by the end of the instruction, while Dyad B failed to improve. However, even
though the two pairs were different, at least as indicated by their scores on the argument pre-
assessment test (see Table 1), they were quite similar in the initial arguments, since both
Dyad A and Dyad B provided Level 2 arguments during the first lesson when they were asked
for the first time to argue for or against the UK governments decision to kill the gray squirrel
in order to save the red squirrel. Examples of written arguments from the two dyads, fromLessons 1 and 3 are presented in Table 4.
Both of the arguments during the first lessons are Level 2 since they consist of a claim
(the same claim for both dyadsthat we should kill the gray squirrel), and a warrant that was
Table 3
Levels of arguments for the two dyads for each lesson
Lesson
Level of Arguments
Dyad A Dyad B
Lesson 1 Level 2 Level 2Lesson 2 Level 2 Level 2Lesson 3 Level 3 Level 2Lesson 4 Level 4 Level 2
222 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
15/29
available from within the learning environment. Even though the initial arguments were simi-
lar for the two pairs, during the implementation of the learning environment, and especially
at the end of Lesson 3 as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the first pair improved their argument for
the first time during the instruction by providing more data, and structuring their argument in
a way that the claim was better supported. In this new argument, Dyad A is providing a
different claim than in their first argumentthe government should kill some gray squirrels
and not alland this argument is supported by various pieces of data (i.e., the red squirrels
die from squirrelpox), warrant (i.e., because they take the red squirrels food), and a weak
rebuttal (i.e., but the gray ones are immune to squirrelpox). On the contrary, Dyad B insists
on the original claimthe government should kill the gray squirrelproviding pieces of
data (i.e., gray is resistant to squirrelpox, the gray is an introduced species), and a warrant(because they were originally here) that is not directly linked to their claim. Therefore, the
written arguments provided by the pairs show that Dyad A improved, both in the way that the
argument was structured, and in the pieces of evidence that were added in the argument as
they progressed within the learning environment, changing along the way their initial claim,
based on the new information they were presented from Argue-WISE. On the contrary, Dyad
B did not seem to improve in the way they structured their argument, their initial claim did
not change, and not all the new information from the learning environment was used to enrich
their argument.
At the end of the implementation of the learning environment (Lesson 4), the pairs were
asked to present their arguments during a whole classroom discussion in which the teacherand the other pairs could challenge them. The following is a representative example from the
presentation of the first pairs final argument during the whole classroom discussion. The
elements of the argument, based on TAP, are shown in the last column.
Table 4
Examples of arguments for the two dyads
Dyad A Level Dyad B
Lesson 1 We should kill the gray squirrel to savethe red because they [gray] are eatingall the food. Because the gray squirrelis pertinent anywhere but the redsquirrel lives in coniferous woods.
2 2 We should kill the gray squirrelsto increase the number of redsquirrels because they [the gray]eat the red squirrels food.
Lesson 3 We believe that the government shouldkill some gray squirrels in order tosave the red [squirrel]. Because they[gray squirrels] take the red squirrelsfood and they have been known to striptreesof their bark. Additionally red
squirrels get squirrel pox which is fatalto them, but the gray ones are immuneso none of them are killed by thedisease and this has resulted in thegray squirrel population beingnoticeably higher than that of thereds.
4 2 We believe that the governmentshould kill the gray squirrel.Our evidence for that is thatthe gray squirrel are renownedfor their resistance tosquirrelpox. Also the graysquirrels were introduced
second, so really the redsquirrels are more nativeto this country because they wereoriginally here to begin with.
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 223
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
16/29
Name Talk
Argument
Element
A2 We should kill some gray squirrels but also do abit more than that
Claim
Teacher Why do you say that?A1 If we dont, then the red squirrels are going to
depopulate whatever we do. But if we only killthem [grays] it is just going to go back tosquare one, they will still populate again andthe red squirrels will eventually in the long rundepopulate and the grays will be back
Warrant,Rebuttal,
Claim
Teacher Right. So are you saying then that we are nevergoing to get rid of all the gray squirrels?
A1 No, we need to kind of split them up. So createnature reserves separate for reds
Claim,Warrant
Teacher So are you arguing that we should or we
shouldnt kill the gray squirrel?A2 We should, but only a fair majority but also do a
bit more, not just kill them. So built somenature reserves, take them back to certain areas
Claim, Rebuttal,Warrant
The students from Dyad A during the whole classroom discussion presented an alterna-
tive solution to their initial one, which was to kill the gray squirrel in order to save the red.
Dyad A has improved their argument from Lesson 3, and they changed their claim from kill
some gray squirrels to kill some gray squirrels but also do a bit more, a claim that they
try to explain to the teacher in the episode above. This claim was provided by the studentswithout being challenged by the teacher, and this change in the students argument seems to
derive from an understanding of the data that were presented to them in the learning environ-
ment, data that were suggesting that the gray squirrel might have contributed to the decrease
of the population of the red squirrel, but other factors might also be responsible.
The following is a representative example from the contributions of the second pair
during the whole classroom discussion.
Name Talk Argument Element
B1 We believe that the government should kill the
gray squirrel. Our evidence for that are the graysquirrel are renounced for their resistance tosquirrel pox, killing the red squirrels will boostthe increase in the red squirrel population.Therefore the red squirrel will be lessvulnerable to extinction
Claim,
Multiple pieces of data,
warrant
Teacher So your argument is that you should kill the graysquirrel right?
B1 YeahTeacher And what is your evidence for that? Do you have
any more evidence to support that?B2 That theyare introduced later, so the red squirrels
were here before
Data
Teacher So how is this important?B2 The red squirrels are native Data
224 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
17/29
In this part of the whole classroom discussion the second pair presented their final argu-
ment, a Level 2 argument as shown in the transcript above. Even when challenged by the
teacher, the students did not further support their argument, but insisted on the fact that the
red squirrels are an indigenous species, as opposed to the gray squirrel. In this exchange ofideas between the students during the whole classroom discussion it is evident that the stu-
dents from the two pairs have very different arguments. The second pair insisted on the initial
argument (Lesson 1), an argument that was enriched with some pieces of data (i.e., compared
to the argument in Lesson 3), ignored relevant data (i.e., red squirrels die in road accidents,
red squirrels are specific with their food whereas the gray are not), and focused on the fact
that the red squirrels are the indigenous species, and therefore, should be preserved without
further justifying that claim. Therefore, a main finding of this study was that Dyad A im-
proved more in relation to Dyad B, however, what is also important to examine, and the main
purpose of this study, is what were the students characteristics of collaborative argumentation
during the four lessons, and how might the argumentation of the first dyad contributed to the
more successful outcome of their construction of an argument.
The ProcessStudents Characteristics of Collaborative Argumentation
In this section, the analyses of the pairs collaborative argumentation or talk during the
four lessons are presented, identifying the differences in the features of collaborative argu-
mentation between Dyad A and Dyad B. Summarizing the findings from the analysis of the
collaborative argumentation, four substantial differences were identified in how the two dyads
collaborated: (a) Dyad A engaged in exploratory talk/negotiating a shared understanding
while Dyad B mostly engaged in cumulative discussions or reading data from the on-line
learning environment; (b) Dyad A engaged in asking each other questions while Dyad B
rarely did so; (c) Dyad A discussed the structure of their final argument in several episodes
during the second and third lesson while Dyad B only did so once in the first and once in the
third lesson; and (d) the two pairs used different elements of argumentation during the discus-
sions, with Dyad A offering more rebuttals, qualifiers and warrants. The number of elements
of argumentation used by each pair during the lessons are shown in Table 5, and the main
characteristics of collaborative argumentation of the two dyads for the three lessons are sum-
marized in Table 6.
Lesson 4 was not coded for characteristics of collaborative argumentation since during
this last lesson the students presented their final arguments during a whole classroom discus-
sion, and did not collaborate in their pairs. In the section that follows we present episodes for
each one of the dyads that are indicative of each pairs characteristics of collaborativeargumentation.
Table 5
Number of elements of argument during the oral argumentation of the two dyads
Dyad A Dyad B
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3
Claims 16 8 7 10 7 3
Data 14 14 9 14 7 8Warrants 2 0 10 2 3 2Qualifiers 16 0 2 4 0 0Rebuttals 0 0 2 0 0 0
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 225
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
18/29
Dyad A
Engaging in Exploratory Talk and Negotiating a Shared Understanding of the
Data. As shown in Table 6, for the first pair (Dyad A), during the first Argue-WISE lesson
there were 14 instances of negotiating a shared understanding, three instances during the
second lesson, and two during the third lesson. What follows is an example of exploratory
talk/negotiating a shared understanding from the first lesson. In this episode, A1 and A2 are
looking at a table presenting information about the size, habits and eating patterns of the red
and the gray squirrels.
Name Talk
Argument
Element
Argumentation
Characteristic
A1 These [red squirrels] are dying because ofstarvation, because,
Claim
A2 They are eating all the food. Because the graysquirrel is pertinent anywhere but the redsquirrel lives in coniferous woods
Data, Data
A1 Anywhere, thats a good pointA2 So they basically eat the same thing except thatthe
gray squirrel doesnt mind the fact that thehazelnuts arent ripe whereas the red squirreldoes
Data, Warrant Explaining data
A1 So there is the size, they are a lot bigger so theyneed more food
Data
A2 YeahA1 But the gray, as they can live anywhere, they can
find food easilyRebuttal data Explaining data
What is evident in this episode is that the two students engaged in a process of under-
standing the data and making connections between the data in order to come to conclusions.
As seen in the episode above, A1 starts, and then A2 continues the line of thinking, buildingon each others ideas. This episode is characterized as exploratory because the students
engage constructively with the ideas presented, and they built on each others line of thinking.
This was not coded as cumulative because the students respond to each others line of
Table 6
Number of episodes with features of collaborative argumentation for the two dyads
Features of Collaborative
Argumentation
Dyad A Dyad B
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3
Exploratoty/negotiating sharedunderstanding
14 3 2 1 0 1
Dispute 1 0 0 0 0 0Cumulative 3 2 5 2 1 6Asking questions 10 7 11 1 3 0Reading data 10 6 0 15 5 6Discussing structure of assignment 0 6 12 1 0 1Using analogies 1 0 0 0 0 0Explaining data 0 0 0 3 1 0
226 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
19/29
thinking (i.e., how they continue each others sentences), evaluating the ideas presented by
their partner (i.e., thats a good point).
The following is another example of how the students in Dyad A negotiated a shared
understanding. This is part of an episode from Lesson 3 in which the students talk about theirfinal argument.
Name Talk
Argument
Element
Argumentation
Characteristic
A1 What are we going to say about bringing red squirrelsback into the south?
Asking questions
A2: I am not sureA1: A fair amount of gray squirrels should be killed. But is
this the way to change the problem in the long ran?Claim Asking questions
A2: Because there will still be gray if we do this WarrantA1: Yes, this wouldnt change the problem in the long ran ClaimA2: So, what are we saying? Asking questionsA1: Split parts and bring red squirrels back to all the parts
they were beforeClaim
A2: Make boundaries? Asking questionsA1: Yes, like a park. Nature reserve WarrantA2: So take gray squirrels out of the habitat theyare and put
them in separate areasWarrant
It is evident in the episode that the students built on each others ideas, and come up with
a new claim after this discussion, which they also present in their final argument. Indeed,
there are only a few instances in which Dyad A engaged in cumulative talk. Instead through-
out the lessons, both A1 and A2 asked each other questions that helped them clarify their
task, understand the data, and finally structure their argument.
Asking Each Other Questions. Dyad A tended to ask each other questions at the begin-
ning of each lesson, while their arguments came up later in the discussion. Below is part of a
cumulative discussion episode from the second lesson in which A1 and A2 were trying to
understand the red and gray squirrels eating habits.
Name Talk
Argument
Element
Argumentation
Characteristic
A2 Red squirrels only eat from coniferous trees DataA1 What else? What else do they eat? Asking questionsA2 Look, here it is [pointing at the computer screen]A1 What should we say about their eating habits? Asking questions
The transcript above shows part of an episode in which the students engaged in cumula-
tive talk, but asked each other questions. In this situation, the questions did not function as a
way to engage with the each others ideas. Other than these instances, both students asked
each other a number of questions which function as a way to monitor their understanding ofwhat each other is saying, and their understanding of the data. This interpretation is supported
by the fact that the episodes that have been identified as negotiating shared understanding
mostly consist of questions.
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 227
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
20/29
Discussing the Structure of the Argument. Another important feature that came out from
the analysis of Dyad As talk, was that the two students engaged in discussing the structure of
their arguments both in Lessons 2 and 3 (see Table 6). This implies that Dyad A students
were thinking about their argument and how to communicate it with their teacher and the
other students, especially during the third lesson in which they were working mainly on
preparing the argument to be presented to the class. An example from the third lesson in
which A1 and A2 discussed the structure of their argument is provided below:
Name Talk
Argument
Element
Argumentation
Characteristic
A1: I know. What we got to do is do that. We got to putevery bit of information in. So we do a page and abit maybe of just key points, and then just write a
huge, big thing saying what we think.
Discussing structureof argument
A2: Ehm, we got to write an argument for it so instead ofjust saying this is this. We need to explain.
Here, A1 suggested that they should include information and key points, and then their
claim, while A2 reminded him that they have to write an argument, and not only information,
adding that they should explain as well.
Dyad B
The argumentation in Dyad B was different compared to the one in Dyad A. More
specifically, the two girls (B1 and B2) rarely engaged in negotiating their understanding, buton the contrary they used most of their time reading pages of evidence provided within
Argue-WISE without talking about the evidence. Hence, the analysis of their talk demonstrat-
ed that they mostly engaged in cumulative talk, while reading the evidence pages, and rarely
engaged in exploratory talk.
Cumulative Talk. A typical example of how B1 and B2 interacted during the lessons is
provided beneath:
Name Talk
Argument
Element
Argumentation
CharacteristicB1 [reading from the screen] The gray squirrel was introduced
in the UK from North America, at the beginning of the19th century, by the Victorians.
Reading data
B2 The red squirrels, what is their body length? 2022 cm Asking questionB1 [reading from the evidence page] A bag of sugar Reading dataB2: That one is heavier [pointing at the gray squirrel on the screen] Explaining dataB1 I know. gray squirrels frequently seen on the ground Reading dataB2 The red prefers to live in coniferous woods Reading dataB1 The gray can live anywhere Reading data
As shown above, the students engaged in reading the data, without questioning or tryingto construct a joint understanding of their implications. The analysis of Dyads B discussions
as presented in Table 6 implies that the two students were not engaged in the process of
discussing and understanding the evidence provided to them, they rarely discussed the
228 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
21/29
structure of the argument or asked each other questions. The analysis of their final argument
shows that the evidence provided within the learning environment was not included in their
final argument.
Summarizing the findings from the analysis of the collaborative argumentation, four sub-stantial differences were identified in how the two dyads collaborated: (a) Dyad A engaged in
exploratory talk/negotiating a shared understanding while Dyad B mostly engaged in cumula-
tive discussions or reading data from the on-line learning environment; (b) Dyad A engaged
in asking each other questions while Dyad B rarely did so; (c) Dyad A discussed the structure
of their final argument in several episodes during the second and third lesson while Dyad B
only did so once in the first and once in the third lesson and, (d) the two pairs used different
elements of argumentation during the discussions, with Dyad A offering more rebuttals, quali-
fiers and warrants. More specifically, the students in Dyad A seem to offer more claims
throughout the lessons, with the most claims offered during the first lesson for both pairs
(Table 5). Examining the transcripts to identify the nature of the claims (i.e., see transcripts
above), it is evident that most of the claims provided by both dyads were new ideas, or
possible solutions for the problem that the students were examining (i.e., create nature
reserves, kill the gray). Therefore, the difference in the number of claims between the two
dyads during their argumentation implies that Dyad A provided more ideas and solutions for
the problem they were examining. On the contrary, in terms of argumentation, Dyad B was
mostly coded as providing data, which by looking at the transcripts can be interpreted as
reading data from the learning environment. The two pairs also differ notably in the number
of qualifiers and warrants that they offer, with Dyad B offering less qualifiers overall. Since
the qualifiers specify the condition under which the claim is true, (and are phrases that show
what kind of degree of reliance is to be placed on conclusions), the fact that Dyad A offered
more qualifiers might indicate a better understanding of the information that was provided
from the learning environment, even though further evidence to support this is not available.
This difference in the TAP elements that were identified in the argumentation of the two
pairs, in combination with the characteristics of their interactions can be interpreted as
engagement, from Dyad A, as opposed from Dyad B.
Discussion and Implications
Argumentation, especially collaborative argumentation requires the coordination of dif-
ferent viewpoints or claims, and therefore participants are expected to share and communicate
their ideas, consider alternative ideas, understand the available evidence, and share their un-derstanding with the other participants before presenting their final arguments (Schwarz,
2009; Stein & Miller, 1991). In this study, we have explored how pairs of students work
together during collaborative argumentation in order to understand the characteristics of their
interactions, and therefore try to identify what kind of actions during collaborative argumen-
tation can lead participants to effective argument constructionin essence the impact of argu-
mentation on argument. Our first research question focused on how students working in dyads
co-constructed their written arguments on the socioscientific issue they were studying. Our
goal was to explore possible differences in the quality of the written arguments between the
two dyads, and then explore whether their collaborative argumentation and their talk in their
pairs might explain any differences in the quality of the written argument. Overall, findingsfor the first research question indicate that even though initial arguments of both the Dyad A
and Dyad B were of the same quality and shared the same claim, by the end of the instruction
the two pairs provided quite different arguments, both in terms of the quality and the claims,
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 229
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
22/29
with Dyad A providing better written arguments. This finding is similar to previous studies
(i.e., Bell, 2004; Zohar & Dori, 2003) that have found that not all students in a class improve
their arguments in the same way after specially designed argumentation instruction. On the
contrary some students, or some groups improve more than others, providing higher levelof arguments by the end of the instruction. This discrepancy on how students or groups
of students develop their arguments might be partially attributed to the different cognitive
abilities of the students (Means & Voss, 1996), even though there is no adequate evidence in
the current study to support this claim. Another reason that could explain the discrepancy on
the quality of written arguments of the two groups is the kind of interactions that took place
between the pairs, and this hypothesis is explored by the second research question. The
second research question was concerned with the differences in students characteristics of
collaborative argumentation, and the impact of those characteristics on the written argument.
Given the difference in outcome, can these be attributed to differences in the ways the
students engage with each other in their pairs? We found four differences between the two
pairs in terms of their interaction in the groups, and these differences are discussed in the
section that follows.
Examining the Differences in Argumentation Between the Two Pairs
The first of the differences involves the type of talk that characterized the interactions
of the two pairs. The successful pair, Dyad A engaged in exploratory talk and negotiated
a shared understanding during the lessons, while on the contrary, the less successful pair
engaged in cumulative talk and rarely asked each other questions. The fact that negotiating a
shared understanding leads to successful learning in science has been documented by a num-
ber of studies. For instance, a study by Alexopoulou and Driver (1996), studying groups
versus pairs, showed that in pairs students who negotiated their ideas and collaborated with
others seemed more likely to progress in their physics reasoning (p.1108). Other studies
have shown that exploratory talk and negotiating a shared understanding (Herrenkohl &
Guerra, 1998; Mercer et al., 1999) is a type of talk that is rarely found in the class, but when
found leads to high cognitive gains. In this study, such an interaction led students to progress
in their argumentation and provide better products by the end of the instruction. This kind of
interaction has not been explored in the context of argumentation, and therefore this charac-
terization of successful argumentation as negotiation of meaning is a contribution of this
study.
The second difference between the two pairs talk that might have contributed to the
differences in their written arguments is the fact that Dyad A, the successful pair, engaged inasking each other questions in order to clarify the evidence, or understand the ideas that were
shared with each other. We contend that this feature of the pairs collaborative argumentation
has contributed to their success in providing high quality written arguments, since previous
studies (i.e., Zoller, 1987) show that student questioning, and more specifically higher-order
questioning is an aspect of problem solving, and an important cognitive strategy, since
students questions play a significant role in meaningful learning. Asking questions is consid-
ered a thinking process skill associated with critical thinking (Schirripa & Steiner, 2000)
and therefore also associated with argumentation. Interpreting the function of asking ques-
tions as leading to successful argumentation is supported by the findings of a recent study by
Chin and Osborne (2010b) in which they explored the role of questions during collaborativeargumentation, and found that productive discourse of the more successful groups was
characterized amongst others by the use of questions which focused on the key ideas of the
lesson.
230 EVAGOROU AND OSBORNE
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
23/29
A third difference between the two pairs in terms of their collaboration was that Dyad A,
which provided higher level of written arguments compared to Dyad B, discussed the
structure of their argument at various episodes in the lessons. This finding suggests that the
students in Dyad A consider this as an important aspect of their task. Talking aboutthe structure of the argument can be considered as a meta-cognitive, or reflective skill, since
the students need to have a deeper understanding of the task and of their argument, in order
to be able to discuss the structure of their argument. Discussing the structure of the argument
as part of the argumentation processes has also been noted in a recent study by Chin and
Osborne (2010a) which showed that the more successful groups made explicit references to
the structure of the argument.
A fourth and final difference between the two pairs was the number of claims proposed
by each one of the pairs. Dyad B, the one who did not improve their final argument, provided
less claims during the four lessons. By carefully examining the claims of the two dyads, it is
evident that these are different ideas put forward by the pairs as solutions to the problem they
were exploring. Consequently, this difference in the number of claims can be explained as a
difference in the number of solutions proposed, with the successful pair providing more sol-
utions for the problem. A similar finding has been documented by Sampson and Clark (2010)
in a study with 1517 students examining a chemistry topic. According to their findings,
individuals in the higher performing groups provided twice as many unique content-related
ideas in their discussions, and as a result had the opportunity to discuss a wider variety of
viewpoints. Therefore, this finding suggests that in some aspects, scientific and socioscientific
argumentation are similar, as for example in that groups that are more successful in their final
product, provide more solutions during their discussion.
The differences in collaborative argumentation between the two pairs appear to be inter-
related. For example, the dyad that was successful in providing high-level written arguments
by the end of the instruction, engaged in all four types of interactions (negotiating a shared
understanding, asking questions, discussing the structure of the argument, proposing multiple
claims) as opposed to the second dyad who rarely did so. While the results of this study are
partly in agreement with the outcomes of other research (i.e., Chin & Osborne, 2010b; Ryu &
Sandoval, 2008), what we have contributed essentially is an evidence-based description of
the characteristics of collaborative argumentation, especially as this is developed within a
socioscientific issue.
The exploratory nature of the study does not allow us to provide conclusions on the
reasons that have let to the differences between the two pairs in terms of their argumentation
and talk. However, based on the findings and the literature we can hypothesize that the differ-ences in the characteristics of argumentation between the two pairs can be attributed to the
engagement of the group with the problem, or the degree of jointly focusing on the topic of
discussion. Our findings suggest that Dyad A engaged more with the topic, an indication of
which is the type of their talk (negotiating of meaning, asking questions), and the number
of different claims and solutions they offered during the lessons. This idea of negotiation of
meaning seems a successful way to engage students in argumentation (Andriessen, Baker, &
Suthers, 2003; Berland & Reiser, 2010) and also aligns with Teasly and Roschelles (1993)
notion of a joint problem space. According to this notion, Collaboration might produc-
tively be thought of as involving a dual-problem space that participants must simultaneously
attend to and develop a content space (consisting of the problem to be solved) and a relationalspace (consisting of the interactional challenges and opportunities) (Barron, 2003, p. 310).
Barron, using the notion of dual-problem space investigated the reasons for variability in
problem solving between triads of different levels, and her analysis suggests that differences
COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION 231
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
-
8/10/2019 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Volume 50 Issue 2 2013 [Doi 10.1002_tea.21076] Maria Evagorou; Jonath
24/29
in performances can be accounted for by the differences in the quantity and quality in the
talk. More specifically, the successful groups discussed all the proposed ideas before rejecting
anything, while less successful groups ignored ideas. According to Barron this might be
considered an indication of the degree to which participants were jointly focused on the sametopic (pp. 347348). Using Barrons idea to interpret the findings of the current study can
lead to the conclusion that the second group in the current study did not engage in a joint
effort to solve the problem under study as opposed to the first dyad that found a joint-space
to discuss the issue they were investigating.
A more recent article by Berland and Hammer (2012), suggests that students frame argu-
mentation in different ways, and therefore they will act in their groups according to the way
they frame argumentation (i.e., to win a discussion, ideas sharing). The idea of framing argu-
mentation is similar to the idea of joint problem spaceevidently in both situations the stu-
dents in the group or pair need to understand the problem in a similar way, and frame it in a
way that will provide the engagement. In this study, the choice of a socioscientific issue as
the context of instruction was based on previous studies that suggested that SSI could engage
students in argumentation. However, our findings suggest that a socioscientific context does
not afford on its own engagement with argumentation. On the contrary, there is a need of
ownership, and engagement that is not automatic and was only evident in one of the pairs. In
order to engage students in socioscientific argumentation the teacher should frame the activity
in a way which makes sense to the group as a whole, and the group needs to identify with the
issue they are discussing (i.e., Evagorou et al., 2012). As Pontecorvo (1993) argues, forms of
discourse become forms of thinking, and, if, students engage in this form of discourse, then
as a consequence, they can begin to appropriate this form of thinking (Mercer, 1996).
The findings of the current study suggest that teachers and curriculum designers should
be aware of the challenges during collaborative argumentation, and be prepared to find ways
to scaffold argumentation, or find ways to create engagement and ownership in the pairs and
groups in order to facilitate the discussions. Therefore, the main implications arising from
this study are: (a) students should be scaffolded towards a feeling of ownership in order to
engage in successful collaborative argumentation, and this does not necessarily happen easier
in an socioscientific context; and (b) specific characteristics of collaborative argumentation
(i.e., negotiating a shared understanding, asking each other questions) need to be scaffolded.
In order to help students engage in collaborative argumentation, and therefore produce better
arguments, we suggest to educators finding ways to help the students frame argumentation
and the problem they are exploring in a way that is productive for each group. For example,
one of the challenges in science classrooms is that many students engage in inquiry activitieswithout understanding the purpose of the activity, and that each activity presents an opportu-
nity to find out something (Kuhn & Pease, 2006). Consequently, in order to address this issue
the teachers should explicitly discuss the purpose of the activity with the class and each group
individually. Additionally, when proposing a socioscientific issue as the context of instruction
the educators and curriculum designers need to understand that the problem is perceived in
different ways by different students (Evagorou et al., 2012), and therefore might be engaging
for some groups, but not for others. Educators and curriculum designers need to identify,
before the instruction, how the students understand the issue, and design the instruction is
such a way that will account for all ideas. Therefore, an implication arising from this issue
for research is an exploration of how students from different backgrounds, either social orcultural, understand and identify with the main socioscientific issues th