Review
The Effect of Peer-Group Argumentative Dialogue on Delayed Gains in Scientific Content Knowledge
Antonia Larrain, Paulina Freire, Valeska Grau, Patricia López, Ignacia Salvat, Maximiliano Silva, Vicente Gastellu,
Antonia Larrain, Paulina Freire, Valeska Grau, Patricia López, Ignacia Salvat, Maximiliano Silva, Vicente Gastellu,
This work was supported by Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico de Chile (FONDECYT), under Grant nos. 1140995, 1170431, and 11130500.
Abstract
Experimental evidence has shown the effect of peer-group argumentation on scientific concept development. However, questions regarding how and why it happens remain. The aim of this study is to contribute, with experimental evidence gathered in naturalistic settings (classrooms), to the understanding of the relationship between peer-group argumentation and content knowledge learning, exploring the role that individual argumentative skills play. In total, sixty-one fourth-grade students (aged 9–10 years) participated in the study (thirty-nine female). One teacher was invited to teach a thematic unit (Forces), with lesson plans especially developed to foster argumentation in the classroom. The second teacher taught as usual. Students’ conceptual understanding and argumentative skills were evaluated individually, both before and after the lessons. Although there were no differences in the immediate post-test scores between groups (after controlling for pre-test), the intervention group showed significantly higher scores in delayed post-tests. Regression analyses showed that the ratio of argumentative utterances per minute of group work predicted students’ scores in delayed post-test disciplinary content knowledge after controlling for initial levels of learning. Argumentation skill gains did not impact learning, but initial levels of argumentation skills predicted delayed scientific content knowledge post-test.
References
- Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S. Y., Reznitskaya, A., & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and instruction, 19(1), 1–46. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1901_1
- Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
- Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
- Aydeniz, M. A., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 111–119. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00170f
- Chen, C. H., & She, H. C. (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students’ argumentation and conceptual change. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 197–210.
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
- Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
- Howe, C. (2013). Dialogue and self-regulation in the primary classroom: Concluding remarks. In D. Whitebread, N. Mercer, C. Howe, & A. Tolmie (Eds.), British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II: Psychological Aspects of Education—Current Trends, No. 10, Self-regulation and dialogue in primary classrooms (pp. 147–156). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
- Howe, C. (2009). Collaborative group work in middle childhood: Joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth of knowledge. Human Development, 39, 71–94. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1159/000215072
- Howe, C., & Zachariou, A. (2017). Small-group collaboration and individual knowledge acquisition: The processes of growth during adolescence and early adulthood. Learning and Instruction. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.007
- Howe, C., Ilie, S., Guardia, P., Hofmann, R., Mercer, N., & Riga, F. (2015). Principled improvement in science: Forces and proportional relations in early secondary-school teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.975168
- Howe, C., McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 67–93. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604X15527
- Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an incline. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113–130.
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
- Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139–1158. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770935
- Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021
- Kruger, A. C. (1993). Peer collaboration: Conflict, cooperation, or both? Social Development, 2, 166–183.
10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00012.x Google Scholar
- Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44, 46–53. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530
- Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512
- Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
- Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
- Larrain, A. (2017). Group-work discussions and content knowledge gains: Argumentative inner speech as the missing link? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 14C, 67–78. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.04.002
-
Larrain, A., Freire, P., & Olivos, T. (2014). Habilidades de argumentación escrita: Una propuesta de medición para estudiantes de quinto básico. Psicoperspectivas, 13(1), 94–107.
10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol13-Issue1-fulltext-287 Google Scholar
- Larrain, A., Howe, C., & Freire, P. (2018). More is not necessarily better: Curriculum materials support the impact of classroom argumentative dialogue in science teaching on content knowledge. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 282–301. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1408581
- Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1159/000022697
- Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 148–168. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804394
- Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK; Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
- Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8(2), 181–192.
- Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
- Piaget, J. (1962). The language and thought of the child. New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1926.)
- Piolat, A., Roussey, J. Y., & Gombert, A. (1999). The development of argumentative schema in writing. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 117–135). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
- Pontecorvo, C., & Arcidiacono, F. (2016). The dialogic construction of justifications and arguments of a seven-year-old child within a “democratic” family. Language and Dialogue, 6(2), 306–328. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.2.05pon
- Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365–395. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030
- Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
- Resnitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952
10.1080/03057640802701952 Google Scholar
- Rivard, L., & Straw, S. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237x(200009)84:5<566::Aid-sce2>3.3.co;2-l
- Roy, A., & Howe, C. (1990). Effects of cognitive conflict, socio-cognitive conflict and imitation on children's socio-legal thinking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3), 241–252. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200305
- Ruthven, K., Hofmann, R., Howe, C., Luthman, S., Mercer, N., & Taber, K. (2011). The epiSTEMe pedagogical approach: Essentials, rationales and challenges. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 31, 131–136.
- Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
- Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
- Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 91–126). New York: Springer.
- Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
- Stein, L. N., & Bernas, R. S. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge skills. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) and J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
- Stein, N., & Albro, E. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32, 113–133.
- Tolmie, A., Howe, C., Mackenzie, M., & Greer, K. (1993). Task design as an influence on dialogue and learning: Primary school group work with object flotation. Social Development, 2(3), 183–201. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00013.x
10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00013.x Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
- Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social regulation of learning during collaborative inquiry learning in science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2503–2532. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1083634
- Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203154472.ch1
10.4324/9780203154472-8 Google Scholar
- Webb, N., Franke, M., Turrou, A., & Ing, M. (2013). Self-regulation and learning in peer-directed small groups. In D. Whitebread, N. Mercer, C. Howe, & A. Tolmie (Eds.), British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II: Psychological Aspects of Education—Current Trends, No 10, Self-regulation and dialogue in primary classrooms (pp. 69–92). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
- Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.406
- Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00013-4
- Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007
- Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: Evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40(4), 673–689. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9207-8
- Young, A. G., Alibali, M. W., & Kalish, C. W. (2012). Disagreement and causal learning: Others’ hypotheses affect children's evaluations of evidence. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1242–1253.
- Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
