a web-based learning environment on global ...

A WEB-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ON GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARGUMENTATION SKILLS Elena Siakidou, Nicos Papadouris & Constantinos P. Constantinou ABSTRACT Argumentation holds a central role in Science Education and has attracted much attention in the research literature. We set out to design and evaluate a learning environment for promoting argumentation skills. In this paper we seek to explore the impact of a web-based learning environment on students’ argumentation skills. The study sets out to investigate the extent to which high school students are able to effectively engage in argumentation and to what extent this can be improved through a specially designed learning environment, on the STOCHASMOS platform. The learning environment was situated in the context of global warming and the debate regarding what causes this phenomenon (human activities or natural processes). We have used the learning environment to guide the teaching intervention in one high school classroom. Participants were 23 students aged 15-17. The intervention involved 12 (110-minute long) sessions. We collected data on students’ argumentation skills through written-open ended tasks administered prior to and after the enactment. The findings suggest significant improvements in students’ ability to engage in argumentation. KEYWORDS Argumentation, web-based learning environment, STOCHASMOS platform

INTRODUCTION Argumentation is an important aspect of scientific reasoning. The ability to engage in argumentation is widely recognized as an important skill for citizenship and also a significant learning objective of science teaching (Erduran, Simon, Osborne, 2004; Jimenez – Aleixandre, Rodriguez & Duschl, 2000). The ability to effectively engage in argumentation over a socioscientific issue posits conceptual understanding with respect to the main ideas involved (Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000) but also skills associated with formulating convincing arguments and critiquing arguments made by others (Erduran et al., 2004). Argumentation has attracted much attention in science education research literature because it constitutes an important educational goal while it could also serve to provide an effective instructional context (Osborne, Erduran & Simon, 2004). Despite the important insights that have emerged so far, there is still a need for more research on the development of teaching innovations for integrating this learning objective in science teaching environment. The present study is directly related to this need; it sets out to design and evaluate a learning environment for this purpose. Specifically, this study focuses on the design of a learning environment for promoting argumentation skills in the context of a topical socio-scientific issue, namely global warming. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Argument and argumentation in Science Education Argumentation holds a central position in the development and justification of scientific claims and, hence, the evolution and elaboration of scientific knowledge (Driver, Newton, Osborne, 2000). Kuhn and Udell (2003) stated that the argument is used as a product, which refers to the results where an

146

individual or a group of people are asked to justify claims, whereas argumentation refers to the process of constructing arguments. Argumentation is a social, intellectual activity serving to justify or refute an opinion. In general, argument describes students’ artifacts with which justify their claims and argumentation refers to the complex process of constructing those artifacts (Osborne et al., 2004). The ability to generate persuasive and convincing arguments to support or to refute an explanation of a phenomenon is an important component of Science Education since a goal of scientific inquiry is the formulation of evidence-based justifications. Research points to the importance of designing specific learning environments to establish students’ argumentation skills. Research questions x To what extent are high school students able to effectively engage in argumentation, without prior instruction? x To what extent can we help students improve their ability to engage in argumentation through a specially designed learning environment? DESIGN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Platform of STOCHASMOS STOCHASMOS is a web-based learning platform for supporting students’ scientific reasoning through authentic investigations with an embedded authoring tool. The authoring environment can be used for creating learning environments, to customize reflective templates for the Workspace, to engage in embedded assessment (synchronous, asynchronous feedback) and to collaborate with other teachers. The learning environments built on this platform consists of two main parts: the Inquiry Environment and the Reflective Workspace environment and focus on reflection during inquiry, student collaboration, interpretation of primary data and finally peer feedback. Overall the main goal is to scaffold students’ learning helping them to organize their investigations and to make their thinking visible. Scaffolding The term scaffold is used to refer to the support provided to students for performing certain tasks. This, for example, could take the form of a hint that could focus students’ reasoning on certain aspects. Another common type of scaffold involves the provision of a structure for certain tasks (e.g. templates to be completed by students in certain ways). The idea of scaffolding has emerged within the socioconstructivism theory of learning (Vygotsky, 1978) and rests on the idea that, when properly supported, students can usefully transcend what they can do by themselves with respect to tasks such as analyzing the parameters of a problem, gathering information, identifying and evaluating possible choices. STOCHASMOS provides curriculum designers with multiple options in terms of possible scaffolding tools they could be embedded in learning environments developed on this platform. Some of these options include the possibility to develop a glossary and a collection of hints for students, the use of templates, intended to help students organize the data they encounter in the learning environment but also to problematize them on how to interpret them. Supporting reflective inquiry The main goal of inquiry-based learning environments on the platform of STOCHASMOS is the reflection. Reflective inquiry encompasses both effective inquiry strategies and reflective activities. Students should be actively engaged in inquiry, asking questions, gathering data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions and communicating results. STOCHASMOS can support reflective inquiry in collaborative learning environments in science and the central role of reflection is to help students engage in critique activities and knowledge integration (Davis, 2003). The learners, who reflect during the inquiry, can incorporate ideas of others, and compose their contributions carefully. Students who spontaneously reflect or explain their ideas learn more and they monitoring their own progress in understanding science.

147

Overview of the learning environment The Inquiry Environment developed in this study consists of five main tabs (see figure 1). The first tab outlines students’ mission (“There is evidence that the climate of the earth undergoes a shift. In the next few weeks we will organize a conference that will deal with the issue of climate change. Your mission is to get prepared for the conference”) and introduces the socio-scientific issue that students are asked to address in their groups. In the second tab (“Weather Phenomena of concern”) students are expected to review data so as to identify phenomena of global concern in relation to climate change. The third tab (“Parts of the system”) includes information for the system’s parts, the earth and its atmosphere, the sun and their interactions. Students are expected to appreciate certain ideas relevant to interactions of the various parts of the system. Additionally, they are provided on fundamental background information about the greenhouse effect (the different ways of energy transfer through heat, emphasis on electromagnetic radiation). Students are expected to identify radiation as a main way of transferring energy, appreciate the idea that all bodies emit radiation and to complete the template “Thermal Interactions” emphasizing in dynamic equilibrium. In the fourth tab (“Regulation of Temperature on Earth”), students need to concentrate on the increase of temperature and study information in relation to factors influencing the global temperature. Students, also, elaborate the mechanism of greenhouse effect. Finally, in the fifth tab (“Earth and Climate”), students need to take a position on whether global warming is a natural or man-made phenomenon, in order to construct arguments.

Figure 1. Climate change web-based learning environment

METHODOLOGY Participants Participants were 23 students aged 15 to 17 years old. The teaching intervention lasted twelve 110minute sessions. Data Sources The main data source involved two written open-ended tasks, prior to and after the teaching intervention (intervention topic: climate change (CC), transfer topic: cystic fibrosis (CF)). Two

148

additional data sources that served a complementary role include the teachers’ reflective diary (notes) and the templates completed by the students while interacting with the learning environment. Argumentation Process Initially, each student had to complete two written tasks (CC, CF) before the implementation (Figures 2&3). These engaged them in constructing arguments, counter-arguments and rebuttals using evidencebased justifications. Then, each student was assigned one of two roles, proponent of either the position that climate change is man-made or emerges as an outcome of natural processes. Prior to and after the teaching intervention, the various pairs engaged in dialogic argumentation on these two topics. Students’ discussions lasted up to 20 minutes in each case and were facilitated by the chat tool embedded in STOCHASMOS. Then, students reviewed the data in the inquiry environment and they completed a template. At the end of this step each group was paired to another group and were asked to engage in argumentation (chat 1). The groups of students repeated the dialogic argumentation activity (chat 2) and engaged in a reflective activity using the template “Let’s think I”. Each group shared the completed template with another group so as to provide and receive feedback. After that, the groups of students’ repeated the dialogic argumentation exercise for a third time (chat 3), completed a different template (“Let’s think II”) and discussed that with another group. Preparation for the showdown All students were divided in two large groups, of equal members, depending on the position they were asked to defend. Half of the students in each of these large groups were asked to serve as specialists about the arguments in support of their own position. The remaining half of the students was asked to serve as experts about the arguments in support of the other position. Showdown The members of two groups engaged in argumentation, in a structured manner. After the teaching intervention, students had to complete, for a second time, the written tasks which were exactly the same.

Figure 2. Written Task of CF

149

Figure 3. Written Task of CC Data Analysis Analytic Scheme for Written Tasks I & II Students’ responses to the written tasks were processed so as to evaluate the extent to which they were in a position to formulate evidence-based arguments, counterarguments (C-A) and rebuttals (R). Counterarguments are arguments that contradict one’s original opinion. Rebuttals are arguments that refute the counterarguments. The criteria for the evaluation of the student arguments were: 1) number of evidence-based justifications included in the written responses (table 1) and 2) connection between counterargument and rebuttal (table 2). The analysis drew on a coding scheme developed by Zohar and Nemet (2002), which was adapted so as to fit our data.

150

Table 1. Criterion 1 and examples of student answers Number of justifications 0 = no answer 1 = only claim 2 = personal thoughts 3 = justification with personal thoughts & evidence 4 = 1 justification with evidence 5 = 2 justification with evidence 6 = 3 or more justification with evidence

Students’ answers (CC) People are the only responsible The earth begins to decay due to the population Due to the climate change, sea water is heated more and so it produces more water vapor From old times the Earths’ temperature has become increasingly high. It is not our fault that the warming has now reached high levels. It is a man-made phenomenon as people enhances the greenhouse effect, but greenhouse gases are produced by nature. Moreover, the temperature of the Earth over the last decade increased by 0.6 oC. Global warming is a natural phenomenon because there is evidence that the Earth underwent similar changes in the past, in that periods in which temperature was increased were followed by periods of higher temperature and vice versa. There is no evidence suggesting that human actions are responsible for this.

Table 2. Criterion 2 and examples of student answers Connections between C-A & R 0 = no answer 1 = Use of C-Alternative 11 2 = Use of C-Critique 12

Students’ answers (CF)

C-A: Prenatal tests are not always accurate since the proportions of false conclusions vary from test to test. R: It is better to take a doctor’s opinion and then decide what they may do. C-A: There may be infections on the mother or the fetus, such as detachment of the placenta. R: I would say that this possibility is only 1-3% and they must take the risk.

RESULTS Written Task I: CC Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the categorization of the students’ responses using the coding scheme. As shown in table 3, the number of the evidence-based justifications underwent a substantial, statistically significant increase during the final assessment. Table 4 shows the differences between pre and post written tasks, where students made better connections between Counter-arguments and rebuttals after the teaching intervention.

11

Disagreement together with proposal of an alternate argument

12

Disagreement accompanied by a critique of the opponent’s argument

151

Table 3. Results from criterion 1 - CC Category

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total *

Argument* Pre (%) N=28 0 14,3 32,2 7,1 35,7 10,7 0 100

Counter-argument**

Post (%) N=23 0 4,3 4,3 4,3 26,1 43,5 17,5 100

Pre (%) N=28 3,6 10,7 25 7,1 53,6 0 0 100

Rebuttal***

Post (%) N=23 0 8,7 0 0 52,2 21,6 13 100

Pre (%) N=28 3,6 17,9 67,8 0 10,7 0 0 100

Post (%) N=23 0 17,4 4,3 0 52,2 26,1 0 100

z= - 3,596, p