The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students' argumentation-based learning (original) (raw)
Related papers
The role of students’ epistemic beliefs for their argumentation performance in higher education
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2022
Students’ argumentation performance can be influenced by their epistemic beliefs, however, in the context of argumentative essay writing and argumentative peer feedback in online setting this has not been clearly investigated. This study explores relationship between students’ epistemic beliefs and argumentation performance regarding essay writing and peer feedback. In total, 101 undergraduate students filled out the epistemic beliefs survey and wrote an argumentative essay. Then, they provided two sets of feedback on the essays of their peers and finally submitted their revised essays. Students’ beliefs about the Internet-specific justification of knowledge did not play a significant role in their argumentation performance in essay writing, while it was related to their constructive peer feedback performance. Students’ beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge were significantly related to their argumentative essay writing and peer feedback performance. In terms of uptake of peer feedback, no significant role was found for epistemic beliefs.
Journal of Biological Education, 2019
The present study investigated the effects of an online learning environment supported with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. As part of a bigger project, a pre- and post-test study design was used with 45 bachelor students who were randomly grouped in pairs. Students were asked to analyse a case and write an argumentative essay taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified organisms. The results showed that the combination of worked examples and peer feedback improve the quality of argumentative essay writing and facilitate the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge. Implications, suggestions, and future research are discussed.
Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay
Teachers often complain about the quality of students' written essays in higher education. This study explores the relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay as they occur in an authentic learning situation with direct practical relevance. Furthermore, the effects of the online argumentative peer feedback script on students' written argumentative essay are studied. A pre-test, post-test design was used with 189 undergraduate students who were assigned to groups of three. They were asked to explore various perspectives, and the 'pros and cons' on the topic of 'Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)' in order to write an argumentative essay in the field of biotechnology. The findings reveal that successful students and groups differ in terms of their feedback quality than less-successful students and groups. This implies that when students engage in high-quality, elaborated and justified peer feedback processes, they write high-quality argumentative essays. Furthermore, the results show that the online argumentative peer feedback script enhances the quality of students' written argumentative essay. Explanations for these results, limitations, and recommendations for further research are provided.
How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning
Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 2019
This study investigates the effects of unscripted, scripted and guided online peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing, argumentative feedback quality and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of educational sciences. Participants were 52 students who were randomly divided over 26 dyads and randomly assigned to three conditions (unscripted, scripted and guided peer feedback conditions). An online peer feedback platform, named EduTech, was designed and these instructional supports were embedded within this platform. Students were asked to write an argumentative essay (individually), to engage in argumentative peer feedback with their learning partner (collaboratively), and finally to revise their essays based on feedback received (individually). The findings indicate that students in the scripted online peer feedback condition outperform the other two conditions in terms of argumentative essay writing, argumentative feedback quality and their domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
2017
This study investigates how students with various epistemic beliefs engage in argumentative discourse and shift their attitude within a digital dialogue game. Participants were randomly assigned to groups of four or five and asked to argue and explore various perspectives of four controversial issues of environmental education in four consecutive weeks that each lasted 90 minutes. Epistemic beliefs of students were seen to be an important factor for the way they engage in argumentative discourse and also their attitudinal change.
Whereas much attention has been given to the cognitive and epistemic dimensions of argumentation, the socio-relational, socio-emotional and motivational aspects of it have been largely neglected. I will put forward the claim that research on argumentation, learning and education can benefit from considering these dimensions, and that it may uncover some of the reasons behind the difficulty to elicit productive argumentation among students. In the first part, I will describe how ‘productive argumentation’ is commonly defined as an activity that is co-constructive and critical at the same time. We call it co-constructive, critical argumentation (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2009b). In the second part, I will try to uncover why it is not easy to elicit this particular type of productive discourse among students, and why they often resort to discourse that is void of either criticism or of co-construction, even when specifically instructed to engage in argumentation. In part three, different attitudes towards conflict resolution are described, each resulting in a distinctively different type of discourse, namely consensus seeking and adversarial argumentative discourse. Short protocols will illustrate the difference between them and how they are likely to inhibit learning. Finally, in part four I will present an assessment scheme that attempts to capture key elements of the epistemic as well as the interpersonal dimensions of argumentative discourse. This chapter concludes with outlining several ways in which the presented conceptualizations and the coding scheme may be used to offer new insights into the social and cognitive processes of learning through peer argumentation. The overall goal of the current paper is to suggest a conceptual framework and a quantitative assessment procedure to capture the differences between different types of argumentative discourse so as to enable empirical research into the antecedents of these different types of argumentative discourse and to further explore their relation with learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 2021
This study compared the effects of support for peer feedback, peer feedforward and their combination on students’ peer learning processes, argumentative essay quality and domain‐specific learning. Participants were 86 BSc students who were randomly divided over 43 dyads. These dyads, in a two‐factorial experimental design, were assigned to four conditions including: peer feedback (n = 22), peer feedforward (n = 22), mixed (n = 20) and control group (n = 22) conditions. An online peer feedback environment named EduTech was designed which allowed us to implement various types of support in the form of question prompts. In this online environment, students were asked to write an argumentative essay on a controversial topic, to engage in peer learning processes and to revise their essay. Overall, the results showed that students in the three experimental conditions (peer feedback, peer feedforward and their combination) benefited more than students in the control group condition (without any support) in term of peer learning processes, argumentative essay quality and domain‐specific learning. However, there was no significant difference among the three experimental conditions. This implies that peer feedforward can be as important as peer feedback in collaborative learning environments which is often neglected both in theory and practice.
This paper focuses on argumentative diagrams for computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning. Thirty pairs of students discussed two cases on the topic of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) via the computer. They communicated via chat. Pairs of students were either asked to collaboratively construct a diagram using argumentative labels to describe the boxes in the diagram, to construct a diagram using argumentative labels to describe the arrows between the boxes, or to collaboratively write a text without using labels. The collaborative process of discussing the topic and constructing the representation (diagram or text) was analysed on how broad and deep students explore the topic of GMOs. Special attention was given to the way students resolve controversy and relate different aspects of the topic under discussion. Preliminary results show that students do not discuss the labels very often and overall are not more aware of controversies and relations in their arguments. They are mostly focused on finishing the diagram or text. Further results will be discussed in Amsterdam.
Journal of Research …, 2008
In this study Junior High School students" processes of argumentation and cognitive development occurring in science and socio-scientific lessons were investigated. Detailed studies of the relationship between argumentation and the development of scientific knowledge are few. Using video and audio documents of small group and classroom discussions, the quality and frequency of students" argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on the work of Toulmin (1958). In parallel, students" development and usage of scientific knowledge was also investigated drawing on a schema for determining the content and level of abstraction of students" meaning making. These two complementary analyses enabled an exploration of their impact on each other. The microanalysis of student discourse showed that (a) when engaging in argumentation students draw on their prior experiences and knowledge; (b) such activity enabled students to consolidate their existing knowledge and elaborate their science understanding at relatively high levels of abstraction. The results also suggest that students can show a higher quality of argumentation that consists of well grounded knowledge of a relatively low level of abstraction. The findings suggest that the main indicator of whether or not a high quality of argument is likely to be attained is students" familiarity and understanding of the content of the task. The major implication of this work for developing argumentation in the classroom is the need to consider the nature and extent of students" content specific experiences and knowledge prior to asking them to engage in argumentation.
Argumentation Theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies.
This paper is aimed at combining the advances in argumentation theory with the models used in the field of education to address the issue of improving students’ argumentative behavior by interacting with an expert. The concept of deeper or more sophisticated argumentative strategy is theoretically defined and used to advance two new coding schemes, based on the advances in the argumentation studies and aimed at capturing the dialectical, or structural, behavior, and the argumentative content of each dialogue unit. These coding schemes are then applied for a qualitative analysis of a study designed to investigate how students’ argumentative behavior can be influenced by the interaction with an expert, who used specific types of attacks to the interlocutors’ positions. The twofold coding shows at which dialogical level expert–peer interactions can directly and more stably affect students’ argumentative behavior, and what effects such more sophisticated strategies can have on the discussion and the analysis of disagreements. In particular, this paper shows how a specific type of deep-level attack, the underminer, can open dialogues of a different level, focused on unveiling and debating background beliefs underlying a specific position