Develop Critical Thinking in Group Problem Solving through Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation: A Case Study Seng Chee Tan, A. J. Turgeon,* and David H. Jonassen ABSTRACT This paper reports a study of supporting development of critical thinking skills for 30 students. The students were engaged in ill-structured problem solving exercises in a turfgrass management course with a Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) tool. The instructional approach was casebased problem solving involving student presentations, instructor-led discussions, and unmoderated small-group discussions. The students used a CSCA tool, QuestMap, to generate arguments for problem analysis and solutions during small-group discussions. A survey given to the students at the end of the course revealed that the CSCA tool increased clarity of thought, enhanced organization of ideas, enabled in-depth analysis, facilitated sharing of multiple perspectives, and allowed visualization of arguments and discussions. However, out of the 14 respondents, 8 encountered some difficulty in operating the program. Observation of a small group engaging in discussion was used to validate some of the feedback obtained in the survey. It also revealed the students’ tendency to make more Claims and Grounds than Warrants in their arguments and to rarely formulate other components of arguments. The group was found to use the CSCA tool as a peripheral tool rather than as a mediation tool during the discussion, an arrangement that might weaken the effect of CSCA.
T
students to become rational thinkers and good problem solvers has been an important educational goal in American schools; problem-solving activities have thus been included as an important part of school curricula. Traditionally, theories, rules, and principles are first taught to students, followed by their application to well-structured problems typified by the end-of-chapter problems in most textbooks. However, problem-solving skills thus acquired may not be transferable to real-life problems, which are often complex and ill structured, and therefore require different skills for successful solutions (Hong, 1998). As a result, there is a movement toward the use of authentic, situated problems (Brown et al., 1989). The problems not only reflect the complexity of the real world, but also necessitate acquisition of knowledge one needs to solve problems, thus making learning more meaningful. Such authentic, ill-structured problems are ill defined in that there are unstated constraints, and one or more aspects of the problem situation are not well specified (Chi and Glaser, 1985; Voss, 1988). For such problems, there are no general rules or principles to apply. There are often multiple solutions RAINING
S.C. Tan, Instructional Science Academic Group, Nanyang Technological Univ., 1 Nanyank Walk, Singapore 637616; A.J. Turgeon, Dep. of Agronomy, Penn State Univ., 116 ASI Bldg., University Park, PA 16802; and D.H. Jonassen, School of Inf. Sci. and Learning Tech., Townsend Hall, Univ. Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Received 8 June 2000. Corresponding author (
[email protected]). Published in J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 30:97–103 (2001).
and solution paths, and consensual agreement on the most appropriate solution is difficult (Kitchner, 1983; Voss, 1988). Ill-structured problems present immense cognitive loads for problem solvers. Solving ill-structured problems requires learners: 1. To form explicit opinions or beliefs about the problems (Meacham and Emont, 1989). 2. To understand alternative perspectives on the problems. 3. To assess the strengths and weaknesses of these alternative approaches. 4. To make decisions and defend them (Jonassen, 1997). 5. To assemble problem-related information from the memory (Voss and Post, 1988). 6. To monitor the process with metacognitive skills, as well as with an awareness of the validity of alternative solutions (Kitchner, 1983). Research studies have shown a myriad of difficulties faced by novice problem solvers (Chi et al., 1981; Voss et al., 1983), to whom solving ill-structured problems is an immense challenge. To support novice problem solvers, one must define the critical skills needed for ill-structured problem solving. Rittel and Webber (1973) proposed that solving ill-structured problems involves debate, negotiation, and conflict, and therefore the central intellectual activity in solving ill-structured problems is argumentation. Cerbin (1988) reinforces this view by claiming (i) the argument is the product of an informal reasoning process and (ii) informal reasoning is the “central intellectual ability involved in solving problems, making judgments and decisions, and formulating ideas and beliefs.” Unlike formal reasoning that uses logical rules to prove things to be true, informal reasoning deals with subject matter that can be approached from different perspectives and requires one to state claims and justify them with grounds appropriate to that situation (Toulmin et al., 1984). There are multiple ways to represent ill-structured problems and each way will lead to a different solution. Because there is no best solution, learners should form an argument for their preferred solution and the reasons against alternative solutions. This means that learners have to make claims for their solutions; warrant those claims with theories, rules, or principles; and back them up with supportive evidence (Voss, 1988). Through the process of arguing and counter-arguing individually or within a group, learners can present more cogent arguments for their problem representations and solutions. Zeidler et al. (1992) see argumentation as a process that engages learners in critical thinking that is necessary for the execution of problem-solving strategies. They contend that when learners make claims and defend their claims through argument and counter-argument, they are using essential criticalthinking operations. These operations include determining the Abbreviations: CSCA, Computer-Supported Collaborative Argementation; NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress.
J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001 • 97
accuracy of statements, identifying ambiguous claims or arguments, identifying unstated assumptions, and assessing the strength of an argument or claim (Beyer, 1988). Argumentation is an important means to ill-structured problem solving, but students often have difficulties with reasoning and forming sound arguments. Results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Applebee et al., 1986) showed that only a small percentage of students were rated competent or better on a persuasive topic. Even college students have problems with presenting sound arguments (Perkins, 1985; Cerbin, 1988). To help students develop debate skills, many scholars advocate direct instruction on the structure and notation of arguments (Kneupper, 1978; Cerbin, 1988; Knudson, 1991, 1992; Yeh, 1998). However, to provide support to the learners engaging in group discussions in the absence of an instructor, a scaffolding strategy can be used (Gauvian and Rogoff, 1989; Freund, 1990). Unlike direct instruction, scaffolding involves providing just enough support to learners so they will internalize the processes being supported and will be able to perform them when the support is removed. The process is much like the scaffolding that supports the construction of a new structure and is removed when the structure is completed (Pressley and McCormick, 1995, p. 9). Typically, an adult or a more capable peer could provide scaffolding to assist a child or a learner in learning and mental development. However, scaffolding can also be provided by a cognitive tool (Lajoie and Derry, 1993), which “enhances the cognitive power of human beings during thinking, problem solving, and learning” (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996). A cognitive tool provides scaffolding by assuming the role of an intellectual partner, relieving the learners of unproductive tasks but engaging them to think more critically (Salomon, 1993; Perkins, 1993). Cognitive tools are not “fingertip tools” (Perkins, 1993) that learners can use effortlessly; rather, they provide essential components of a learning environment that causes learners to generate thoughts more critically than they would without the support. Such tools encourage learners to exert greater cognitive effort in constructing their own knowledge (Salomon and Globerson, 1987). In the case of group problem solving, a Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) tool can act as a cognitive tool to scaffold argumentation during the problemsolving process. It can help to scaffold argumentation skills by providing an argument structure and notations that enable learners to make explicit important assumptions, distinctions, and relationships in their arguments (Buckingham Shum et al., 1997). Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation tools in graphical modes have the added advantage of enabling users to visualize internal abstractions and make the deliberation process explicit. They also help in collaborative group work by serving as referential objects that allow participants to keep track of and refer to ideas under discussion. While one can also use the symbolism for elements of argumentation on paper, using computer-based tools allows one to maintain an overview of the arguments and expand the details of arguments simply with mouse clicks. Computer-based tools also record the user’s name, date, and time of creation of arguments automatically. More importantly, they allow users at different locations to contribute to the argumentation and thus facilitate collaborative problem solving. 98 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001
As CSCA is a relatively new technology, there were only a few studies on the use of CSCA in higher education. Carr (1999) found no significant difference in argumentation skills between second-year law students who used a CSCA tool during discussions and their counterparts who were not supported by the tool. He suggested that for law students, who are already highly skilled in argumentation, CSCA functions as an efficiency tool that supports the process of discussion rather than scaffolding the development of argumentation skills. In a preliminary study, Veerman et al. (1999) compared three different modes of collaborative discussion carried out by college students enrolled in Educational Technology and Computer Based Learning courses: an unstructured synchronous discussion (NetMeeting), a structured synchronous CSCA tool (Belvédère), and an asynchronous threaded forum discussion (Allaire Forums). Through comparison of descriptive statistics, the Belvédère system generated the most frequent argumentative discussions, even more so than students who received coaching in the NetMeeting. Veerman et al. (1999) attributed this to the argumentation interface provided by the Belvédère system. The above studies indicate the potential benefit of CSCA tools, especially for users who are not highly skilled in argumentation. However, the paucity of research in this area suggests that this is an area that could be more extensively studied. This study aims to fill in this gap by exploring the applicability of CSCA in supporting illstructured problem solving in a higher education setting. INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES Turfgrass management is a complex domain that requires one to understand a wide range of knowledge including agronomic principles of turfgrasses, expectation of golfers, pest control, management of employees, project management, and budget control (Danneberger, 1994). To bridge the gap between classroom learning and real world decision-making in golf turf management, students are required to take the course “Case Studies in Turfgrass Management.” Using this approach, students have to analyze complex real-life cases to develop solution strategies and detailed action plans for dealing with issues emerging from their analyses. The 30 Caucasian male students who attended the course were mostly employees at golf courses before they were enrolled in a 2-yr technical certificate program on golf turf management offered by a large land-grant university in the northeastern USA. The course spanned a period of 7 wk. The students met twice each week with the instructor, and the duration of each class meeting was 75 min. The instructor spent the first seven class meetings thoroughly analyzing the first case problem and exploring solution options through instructor-led discussions. Three important components of turfgrass case studies were discussed—problem identification, analysis, and solution; financial management; and project management. The instructor used the first case study to demonstrate the strategy for problem solving in turfgrass management. Subsequent to the first case study, the students were given three other casebased problems as assignments to be done in groups. The students were randomly assigned to groups of three or four students. Before the whole-class discussion of a case, the students were to meet in small groups and generate group reports,
which were to include problem analysis and solution using QuestMap, a CSCA tool. During a typical class meeting, all groups would meet for a face-to-face discussion facilitated by the instructor. A group would role-play the various stakeholders involved in a case so as to represent and define the problem. A second group would present their analysis of the problem, and a third group would present and explain their solutions to the problem. Each group presentation was followed by a question-and-answer session, during which the students or the instructor could ask for clarifications on some issues brought out during the presentation. After the student presentations, the instructor would elaborate on key issues of the case and conduct short lectures on relevant concepts, rules, and principles when appropriate. Fig. 1. A example of a QuestMap argumentation on a turfgrass problem.
Supporting Argumentation with a CSCA Tool QuestMap, the CSCA tool used in this study, is a Windowsbased program that was designed and developed by Conklin and Yakemovic (1991). It has been used commercially by some corporations for group activities such as strategic planning or new product design (Group Decision Support Systems, 2001) and can be adapted to educational settings for collaborative discussion (Carr, 1999). Structurally, it can be used to model a simplified version of Toulmin’s model of argument (Toulmin, 1958; Toulmin et al., 1984). The students received instruction on the use of QuestMap during the second class meeting. The instructor showed the students how to make use of QuestMap notations to construct arguments for problem analysis and solution. A tutorial handout was given to the students to assist them with the operation of the program. The students made use of QuestMap to generate three reports during a 4-wk period. An example of QuestMap argumentation created by a group of students is shown in Fig. 1. The discussion was about solutions to a particular green with drainage, shading, and traffic compaction problems. A student started by creating the problem statement (denoted by the ? icon). Another student put forth his suggestion to the problem: control traffic (denoted by a bulb icon). He explained why controlling traffic effect could be a solution (the + icon) and citing soil compaction symptom from the problem description as an evidence of the traffic problem (the note icon). Using QuestMap, the students created an overview of their arguments with linkages between their Claims, Grounds, Warrants, or Rebuttals. Each icon could be expanded by a mouse click to show detailed descriptions of their arguments. STUDENT FEEDBACK ON THE CSCA TOOL A survey was administered at the end of the course to find out, from a student’s perspective, how QuestMap had helped or hindered the discussion and problem-solving processes. The take-home survey contained five open-ended questions: 1. Describe how your group made use of QuestMap during discussions. (e.g., Did you create the arguments as you analyzed the problem, or did you analyze the problem first and then transform the analysis into arguments? Did the whole group construct the arguments with QuestMap together? Did you work with paper and
2.
3.
4. 5.
pencil first before transferring the arguments to computer?) Did you find the use of QuestMap helpful to your case study? If your answer is yes, explain how it helps in the case study. If your answer is no, explain why you think it was not helpful. Did you find the use of QuestMap helpful to the group discussion process? If your answer is yes, explain how it helped in the discussion. If your answer is no, explain why you think it was not helpful. What other ways do you think you have benefited from the use of QuestMap? Describe any problems you encountered when you were using QuestMap. How did you overcome these problems?
There were 20 students who agreed to participate in this survey, and 14 individuals replied. How QuestMap Was Used About 40% of the respondents did their arguments on paper using QuestMap notations before transferring them to computer on the grounds that it was easier and faster than putting information directly into the computer. This could be due to the computer competency level of the students. On the other hand, another 40% of the students indicated their preference to work directly with the computer program because they found it more efficient. For the problem-solving process, the students typically discussed the problems, analyzed them, and transformed the analyses into arguments. As one student mentioned: As a group, we more or less did straight analysis first. We left the arguments for later after we had researched certain symptoms or the data that was made available to us with each specific case.
How QuestMap Helped or Hindered the Case Studies About 70% of the respondents gave favorable comments on the use of QuestMap in case studies. One student described it as “a constructive process to find a good solution to the probJ. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001 • 99
lems.” More specifically, the students noted some cognitive benefits of QuestMap. About 29% of the respondents felt that QuestMap could help to promote clarity of thought. QuestMap was described as an effective tool to allow students to “get to the heart of the matter” by guiding them through the “process of concrete analysis” and “enabling them to be clear and concise right to the point.” QuestMap also enabled the students to better organize and study their ideas. This could be attributed to the structure of argument it provides, which some said gave them “a valuable outline to follow” or “an order to proceed through the problem solving process.” About 20% of the respondents indicated that the QuestMap structure enabled them to come up with more in-depth analyses and solutions. One student wrote: I think that the main benefit of using the QuestMap was it made us go deeper into our analyses of our problems, as well as come up with more than one solution. This made us examine the possibilities of different solutions instead of simply coming up with one obvious solution that may have not been right, but appeared right after only reading the problem.
However, the students also mentioned some drawbacks to QuestMap, the main concern being the difficulty in operating the program and using the notations, a problem labeled as “cognitive overhead” by Buckingham Shum et al. (1997). About 29% of the respondents felt it was too time-consuming and took a long time to become proficient at using the program. One student also found it “confusing and repetitive at times and was unsure of where to put the information.” Another student felt that “it took too long to become proficient at using the program, and hindered our discussions.” How QuestMap Helped or Hindered the Discussions About 79% of the respondents found QuestMap helpful in making the “group discussion clearer and easier to follow.” QuestMap provided structure and organization for discussion, helped to “organize thoughts and ideas,” and allowed students “to be specific and talk about certain points without having to discuss the problem as a whole.” Furthermore, it provided visual representations and by making arguments visual, “it was easier to follow people’s trains of thought.” It was also felt that QuestMap could promote multiple ideas and perspectives and that it helped the students to discuss “different viewpoints and come up with different problems and different solutions for these problems.” On the other hand, about 21% of the respondents did not find QuestMap helpful in the discussion process. One student revealed that the group members usually completed their discussion before doing their maps. Another felt that the group was able to have a quality discussion without using QuestMap. Other Benefits of QuestMap The responses to Question 4 were scanty and most could be grouped under other questions. Besides being helpful to case studies and group discussion, one student felt QuestMap was a valuable tool for problem solving, even in a noneducational setting. Another student found it an excellent tool for presentation, which helped in “getting the ideas across in a clear manner.” 100 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001
Problems Encountered When Using QuestMap The students encountered one main problem in using QuestMap: technical difficulties in using the program. About 43% of the respondents had difficulty saving the program to a disk. This was because the students had to export the file to an ASCII format so that it could be imported to another computer for presentation or assessment purposes. The students also found the program not user friendly and felt that the tutorial session on the use of QuestMap could be more in-depth. The situation was aggravated because the instructor also encountered technical difficulties in getting the computer projector to work in the small classroom. Within the three sessions of presentation, only one group succeeded in presenting their arguments with QuestMap, but the size of projection was not big enough for the text to be seen clearly by the whole class. One student also reported having problems with the QuestMap notations during group discussion. The group was not sure how to put the information in the relevant icons and sometimes repeated the same statements under different icons. This indicates their confusion in creating arguments with QuestMap notations. OBSERVATION OF A CSCA GROUP DISCUSSION The main purpose of the observation session was to gain insight into the role of a CSCA tool during a group discussion and problem solving process. It also helped to validate the responses of students in their assessment of QuestMap. The senior author observed a group consisting of three members—designated Andrew, Bobby, and Calvin. Before the group discussion, Bobby and Calvin had a preliminary discussion and they had at that point created some argumentation using QuestMap. The purpose of having a prior discussion was not clear, and that discussion may have affected the observed discussion and some valuable information—especially on the creation of QuestMap argumentation—may have been lost. Audio recording was used during the observation, and field notes were taken to capture some nonverbal behaviors. In the analysis of the data, the audio recording was first transcribed into text and then entered into a word processor. The text was then segmented into message units, each carrying one of the following communicative acts: Claim (statement of the problem), Grounds (the facts of the situation), Modifier (the extent of certainty by which the grounds justify the claim), Warrant (general rules or principles), Backing (justification for why the warrants are applicable in the specific case), Rebuttal (conditions under which the grounds may not justify the claim), Planning, QuestMap, On-Task Comments, and OffTask Comments. The message units were also classified into the following interactive moves: Making Argument, Opposition, Counter-Opposition, Continuation, and Comments. This method of discourse analysis is similar to those reported by Resnick et al. (1993) and Kelly and Crawford (1996). Background to the Discussion The focus of discussion was the case of the Number 4 green on the Gary Player Golf Course at Sun City in South Africa. Layering seemed to be the main symptom of problems on this golf course. Records of soil temperature and root
depth, temperature and rainfall, as well as cultural practices for the Number 4 green were also available to the students. The students were asked to create two argumentation diagrams using QuestMap—one on the analysis of the problem and the other on the solutions.
rebuttal. It indicated a low emphasis on assessing or evaluating the solutions they proposed. Interaction Pattern
The survey revealed that most students did the problem analysis and solution before transferring the information into QuestMap, but this group used QuestMap in a unique way. The group started the discussion with QuestMap argumentation prepared by Bobby and Calvin. During the group discussion, Andrew and Calvin were more involved in the problem analysis while Bobby was recording and modifying the arguments. Thus, there was a constant input of information into QuestMap throughout the discussion. However, as a group they had more extensive discussions on how to transfer the information to QuestMap toward the end of the session.
In terms of interaction modes, making arguments had the highest occurrence (32%). There was a moderate amount of making comments (20%), seeking clarification (19%), and continuing or elaborating an argument (26%). However, opposition (2%) and counter-opposition (1%) occurred minimally. The results show a much stronger tendency among the students to present their arguments than to oppose and counteroppose arguments made by others. Evidently, heated debates did not occur during the discussion; instead, challenging of ideas occurred in the more subtle form of seeking clarifications. About 45% of the clarifications focused on Grounds or evidence. This is an indication that the participants appealed to the Grounds for support of arguments.
Argumentation Pattern
Guiding Discussion
Andrew contributed the most to the discussion, about 51% of the message units. Calvin contributed moderately in the discussion (32%), and Bobby participated the least in the conversation (17%). However, Bobby was solely responsible for entering and editing information into QuestMap argumentation during the discussion. The group was task-oriented, which was evident from the dominance of on-task message units (95%) compared with offtask message units (5%). The extent of argumentation in the discussion was rather high. If simple agreement message units like yup or OK and occasional off-task comments are disregarded, argumentation contributed to 85% of the message units. Among the argumentation units, a relatively high percentage of Claims were made (45%), followed by Grounds (35%) and Warrants (15%). These correspond to the primary elements of argumentation in Toulmin’s model (1958). The occurrences of the other three elements were substantially lower (Backing 5%, Rebuttal 0.4%, Modifier 0%). By a simple comparison of the percentages of the argumentation components, it is evident that the students did not always support their Claims with Grounds and Warrants, much less with the other components of argumentation. A more detailed examination of the transcript showed that this weakness in argumentation did exist, but the percentage of Claims was partly inflated because the participants sometimes restated or rephrased their Claims. Among the other components of argumentation, the students demonstrated their strength in presenting and clarifying supporting evidence. They frequently referred to the printout of the case description and information. They also appealed to the accuracy of the Grounds, as is evident from the high percentage of clarification related to Grounds (45%). However, they were weaker in presenting Warrants, which means the relationships between the Grounds and Claims were not always explained using rules or principles. The poor performance in stating backing and modifier could be due to the fact that these components were not directly supported by the use of QuestMap in this study, but the major weakness of the students lay in their infrequent use of
There was some evidence that QuestMap may play a part in shaping the discussion. First, Bobby was evidently assigned the role of transferring the discussion into QuestMap as he was working on it throughout the process. Andrew and Calvin, while heavily engaged in problem analysis and solution, talked with Bobby about the QuestMap argumentation at various points in the discussion, more so toward the end of the discussion. Thus, the group shared a common goal and the discussion was geared toward construction of the QuestMap argumentation. The visual representation provided by QuestMap may have some influence on the students. This was evident when Andrew started drawing his argumentation map on paper. However, the simple map drawn by Andrew resembled something more like a concept map. The paper-based argumentation map became a visual representation of problem analysis for Andrew. He constantly referred to it while accounting for the problems they had discussed. QuestMap might also help to promote depth of thought in encouraging students to revisit their ideas. While recalling their analysis for QuestMap argumentation, the students also reviewed and elaborated their analysis. For instance, Andrew suggested the new idea of using ammonium sulfate to overcome a low N rate. The students also extended their discussion on the type of topdressing to be used while discussing QuestMap arguments.
Using QuestMap
IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN The study showed that many students faced technical difficulties in using the CSCA tool. To facilitate efficient use of QuestMap in the future, we could conduct more training on the use of the program before its application by the students and provide support to students who face difficulties with the program. To overcome confusion in using the notations of the CSCA tool, a simple approach would be to give more elaborate instructions on the use of the notations in the program so that the students could use it effectively in problem solving instead of being hindered by them. The instructor could also allocate J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001 • 101
more time in class for discussions on the QuestMap arguments created by the students and on issues concerning the use of the program. However, part of the problem could be due to the use of QuestMap notations to represent Toulmin’s model of argument. A survey of some of the QuestMap arguments produced by the students showed that, despite being instructed in the tutorial to use the + icon for Warrant, intuitively some students used this symbol to represent advantages of a solution. Even though the students were not instructed to include backings in their arguments, a couple of students use the note icon to describe backings rather than evidence. This becomes an issue of graphical interface design. Mountford (1990) suggests that interpretation of a graphical user interface depends on the user’s prior knowledge and experience. In this study, the students have poor prior knowledge of argumentation, as indicated by the low pretest argumentation scores; it is likely that the students will interpret the iconic representations of the CSCA tool using their everyday experience. Furthermore, the terms Pro and Con were used in the pull-down menu of the program. As a result, there could be a mismatch between the instructor’s intended use of the notations and the students’ interpretation of the notations. Cocklin (1988) argues that if a software system’s model is incongruent with the user’s mental model of a task, the user will face the double task of working the system and accomplishing their primary goals. This is in agreement with the findings of Buckingham Shum et al. (1997), that cognitive overhead could hinder rather than facilitate user performance. Thus, a more radical solution to the problem of cognitive overhead is either to adopt the argumentation structure of the program or to design a new program that uses the desired argumentation model. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The students’ feedback on the benefits of the CSCA tool was consistent with the theoretical contentions of a number of researchers (Brown, 1986; Buckingham Shum et al., 1997). Students indicated that QuestMap increased clarity of thought, enhanced organization of ideas, enabled in-depth analysis and solutions, facilitated sharing of multiple ideas and perspectives, allowed visualization of arguments and discussions, and promoted teamwork and on-task behaviors. Observation of a CSCA discussion group was also consistent with feedback obtained in the survey. It revealed the students’ tendency to make more Claims and Grounds than Warrants in their arguments, and rarely to formulate other components of arguments. An important finding was that the CSCA tool played a peripheral role rather than being the central focus during the discussion, an arrangement that might weaken the effect of the CSCA tool. This is because the CSCA tool exerts its effects through scaffolding. To achieve this effect, the students have to follow the structure provided, internalize the argumentation structure, and be able to apply it later without the support of the CSCA tool. Thus, it would be more effective to mediate the discussion using the CSCA tool through a computer network, rather than allowing students to first hold a face-to-face discussion and transform their arguments using the program. 102 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001
To be more successful in using the CSCA tool, we need to overcome the problems faced by the students, which are the technical difficulties and cognitive overhead in using the program. Although more extensive training, support, and guidance could be given to the students, a more radical approach is to adopt the argumentation structure of the program or to design a new program for intended argumentation model, rather than adapting the notations of an existing program for another argumentation model. REFERENCES Applebee, A.N., J.A. Langer, and J.V.N. Mullis. 1986. The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Beyer, R.J. 1988. Developing a thinking skill program. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Brown, J.S. 1986. From cognitive ergonomics to social ergonomics and beyond. p. 457–486. In D.A. Norman and S.W. Draper (ed.) User centered system design: New perspectives on human computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. Res. 18:32–42. Buckingham Shum, S., A. MacLean, V.M.E. Bellotti, and N.V. Hammond. 1997. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. [Online.] [28 p.] KMI-TR-25. Available at http://www2.kmi.open.ac.uk/tr/techreportstext.cfm (verified 24 July 2001). Knowledge Media Inst., Milton Keynes, UK. Carr, C. 1999. The effect of computer-supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) on argumentation skills in second-year law students. Ph.D. diss. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA. Cerbin, B. 1988. The nature and development of informal reasoning skills in college students. ERIC doc. ERIC ED298805. ERIC Database, Syracuse, NY. Chi, M.T.H., P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser. 1981. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Sci. 5:121–152. Chi, M.T.H., and R. Glaser. 1985. Problem solving ability. p. 227–250. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.) Human abilities: An information processing approach. W.H. Freeman, New York. Cocklin, T.G. 1988. Software usability and productivity. p. 7–22. In P. Whiteney and R.B. Ochsman (ed.) Psychology and productivity. Plenum Press, New York. Conklin, J., and K.C.B. Yakemovic. 1991. A process-oriented approach to design rationale. Human-Cumputer Interaction 6:357–391. Danneberger, T.K. 1994. Integrating classroom instruction with turfgrass field experience through a golf course project. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 23:56–58. Freund, L.S. 1990. Maternal regulation of children’s problem-solving behavior and its impact on children’s performance. Child Dev. 61:113–126. Gauvain, M., and B. Rogoff. 1989. Collaborative problem solving and children’s planning skills. Dev. Psychol. 25:139–151. Group Decision Support Systems. 2001. Organizational Memory + QuestMap. [Online.] [1 p.] Available at http://www.gdss.com/omq/index. html (verified 7 Aug. 2001). Hong, N.S. 1998. The relationship between well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in multimedia simulation. Ph.D. diss. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA. Jonassen, D.H. 1997. Instructional design models for well-structured and illstructured problem solving learning outcomes. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 45:656–694. Jonassen, D.H., and T.C. Reeves. 1996. Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. p. 693–719. In D.H. Jonassen (ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Simon and Schuster Macmillan, New York. Kelly, G.J., and T. Crawford. 1996. Students’ interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 33:693–707. Kitchner, K.S. 1983. Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Dev. 26:222–232.
Kneupper, C.W. 1978. Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition and Commun. 29:237–241. Knudson, R.E. 1991. Effects of instructional strategies, grade and sex on students’ persuasive writing. J. Exp. Educ. 59:141–152. Knudson, R.E. 1992. The development of written argumentation: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study J. 22:167–183. Lajoie, S.P., and S.J. Derry (ed.). 1993. Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Meacham, J.A., and N.C. Emont. 1989. The interpersonal basis of everyday problem-solving. p. 7–23. In J.D. Sinnott (ed.) Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications. Praeger, New York. Mountford, S.J. 1990. Tools and techniques for creative design. p. 17–30. In B. Laurel (ed.) The art of human-computer interface design. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA. Perkins, D.N. 1985. Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. J. Educ. Psychol. 77:562–571. Perkins, D.N.1993. Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. p. 88–110. In G. Salomon (ed.) Distributed cognitions: Pscyhological and educational considerations. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Pressley, M., and C.B. McCormick. 1995. Cognition, teaching, and assessment. Harper Collins College Publ., New York. Resnick, L.B., M. Salmon, C.M. Zeitz, S.H. Wathen, and M. Holowchak. 1993. Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction 11(3, 4):347–364. Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4:155–169.
Salomon, G. 1993. On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of writing partner. p. 179–196. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry (ed.) Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Salomon, G., and T. Globerson. 1987. Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. Int. J. Educ. Res. 11:623–638. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning. 2nd ed. MacMillan Publ. Co., New York. Veerman, A.L., J.E.B. Andriessen, and G. Kanselaar. 1999. Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. p. 640–650. In C.M. Hoadly and J. Roschele (ed.) Proc. of the 3rd Conf. on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Palo Alto, CA. 12–15 Dec. 1999. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Voss, J.F. 1988. Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem solving model. Int. J. Educ. Res. 11:607–622. Voss, J.F., T.R. Green, T.A. Post, and B.C. Penner. 1983. Problem solving skill in the social sciences. p. 165–213. In G. Bower (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 17. Academic Press, New York. Voss, J.F., and T.A. Post. 1988. On the solving of ill-structured problems. p. 261–285. In M.T.H. Chi et al. (ed.) The nature of expertise. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ. Yeh, S.S. 1998. Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Res. Teaching English. 33:49–83. Zeidler, D.L., N.G. Lederman, and S.C. Taylo. 1992. Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Sci. Educ. 76:437–450.
J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001 • 103
