Metacognitive and Collaborative Arguing through

Metacognitive and Collaborative Arguing through Computers by University Students Nancy MacCann-Alfaro

Department of Social Work / Faculty of Social and Legal Sciences Copayapu 485, Copiapó| University of Atacama, Chile [email protected]

Erla Mariela Morales-Morgado

Ana García-Valcárcel

Didactic, Organization and Research Methods, GRIAL Research Group Plaza de los Caídos 169 University of Salamanca, Spain [email protected]

Didactic, Organization and Research Methods, GITE Research Group Plaza de los Caídos 169 University of Salamanca, Spain [email protected]

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

The main objective of the research is to promote the development of argumentative skills in university students from the Social Work degree programme, through the promotion of metacognitive skills and collaborative work in a digital context. The research has characteristics of a mixed study with a quasiexperimental design with a control group since the experimentation occurs in natural groups in a real context. Using a quantitative methodology, pre and post measurement instruments will be applied, and statistical analysis will be carried out. Through the qualitative methodology, the development process of the aforementioned skills will be analysed from each student´s individual self-records and the argumentative discussions of the student teams. The population includes all new students who study the subject, The Social and Political History of Chile from the Social Work degree program, in a public University located in Chile. The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment using Everyday Situations (HCTAES) was used to measure the students’ argumentative skills. The metacognitive skills were measured by the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Both instruments are translated and validated for the Latin-American population. The main result is contribution to the development of a systemic educational innovation model that integrates two great higher order thinking skills such as Metacognition and Argumentation through the use of ICT and collaborative work.

Computer-based learning environment; computer-supported argumentation; argumentation; metacognition; ArgumentationBased Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL); Higher Education.

CCS CONCEPTS • Social and profesional topics → profesional topics → Computing education → Model curricula Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. TEEM'18, October 24–26, 2018, Salamanca, Spain © 2018 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6518-5/18/10…$15.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284352

ACM Reference format: N. MacCann-Alfaro, E. M. Morales-Morgado and A. García-Valcárcel. 2018. Metacognitive and Collaborative Arguing through Computers by University Students. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM 2018) (Salamanca, Spain, October 24-26, 2018), F. J. García-Peñalvo Ed. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284352.

1 CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION THAT DRIVES THE DISSERTATION RESEARCH New information and communication technologies (ICT) have generated rapid changes in all aspects of life. Education has not been exempt from this transformation; on the contrary, it has resulted in the rethinking of teaching-learning methodologies requiring it to be attuned to the needs of a 21st century Knowledge-based Society. According to Leitão [1], a high percentage of students of higher education haven´t the necessary skills to adopt a critical position and transform the received knowledge. In this way, it´s possible to visualize students as recipients, who assume a passive and uncritical position The analysis of the dynamics of communication and interaction in the current scenario offers relevant information to improve educational practices and potentialise their use for the benefit of better learning outcomes. Several technological tools have been developed that provide the infrastructure for learning, and also allow supervision and monitoring by the teacher [2,3]. Furthermore, the current need to search for quality assurance in higher education, reveals the importance of promoting the development of thought. In 1998, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [4] spoke on the missions and functions of higher education, highlighting the need for vision and a new student-centered teaching model. The goal would be to train students to be wellinformed and deeply motivated citizens, equipped with criticalthinking skills and capable of analysing the problems of society,

Metacognitive and Collaborative Arguing through Computers by University Students seeking solutions, applying these solutions and assuming social responsibilities. Taking the last idea into account, this paper presents a study that is currently taking place in the framework of a doctoral´s thesis. The investigation has been developed for higher education and its aim is to promote argumentative and metacognitive skills with computer-based learning environments (CBLE). The disciplinary domain in which activities were aplied was that of History which is included in the current curriculum for social work career. First, we address the importance of research in the interaction between argumentation and metacognition, the opportunity to promote both with technological tools in a collaborative environment. Secondly, we present the methodological structure of the research and its justification. Then we describe the main characteristics of pedagogical strategy and the implemented steps to begin it. Finally, the paper presents the results observed to date and the state of the thesis to continue analyzing the current and expected contributions, which suggest that despite this research has been contemplated at the level of social work degree, its findings would be able to serve as the basis for studies and interventions in other university degrees.

2 STATE OF THE ART Metacognition and argumentation have been the focus of academic interest, giving rise to literature about the individual subjects. However, there is now research that has begun to look at these subjects and their interaction on a whole [5-8]. According to Cross, Taasoobshirazi, Hendricks and Hickey [9], metacognitive skills would influence how arguments are developed and evaluated. In addition, argumentative capacity would favor the development of metacognitive skills that lead to the control and evaluation of one's thinking. From Aristotle onwards, scholars have tried to systematize argumentation through, philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, logic, and more recently, linguistics and semiology. Although these varying methods have approached argumentation with different objectives and perspectives, they have undoubtedly contributed a wealth of knowledge to the subject [10] Within the contemporary developments of the theoretical reflections on argumentation, Monzalve [11] establishes three notable moments in history: The first emerged around the Second World War, in which the focus was on "totalitarian discourses", highlighting authors such as Toulmin and Perelman, who based their studies on argumentation as a way of convincing an audience with reason or persuasion. The second notable moment is from the 80s onward when research related to argumentation emerged within the most diverse disciplinary areas, focusing its study on the analysis of cognitive, epistemic and context variables, At this point, they began to explore the skills students use to argue, including reasoning, counter-argument and critical reflection [12]. From the cognitive perspective, a group of researchers have been interested in investigating the functions of argumentation.

TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain among which are: the social function supported by the approaches of Vigostky and Kuhn; the dialectical function, proposed by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst; the cognitive function proposed by Kuhn, and the epistemic function based on the approaches of Leitão [11] Developing these functions in the learning process allows students to put into action a series of skills or abilities that allow them to take a stand on issues, resolve conflicts, solve problems of various degrees, reflect critically on areas or disciplinary knowledge as well as their own actions and philosophy, transforming previous knowledge into new knowledge. In these studies there is a consensus on considering argumentation as central to the acquisition of knowledge given that it allows students to approach and study phenomena, question them, reflect on their own actions, compare their previous knowledge with the current theories, develop a capacity for judgment, contradict their own opinions and those of others, reason and think critically. In this regard, the educational approach with which the argumentation is addressed in this research, is linked to the concept of "learning to learn". In other words, learning in a self-regulated and autonomous way, more precisely in what Flavell [13] conceptualized as metacognition, which is the active supervision and consequent regulation and organization of those processes in relation to the objects or cognitive data on which they are acting, normally with some specific goal or objective. According to Kuhn, Amsel and O'Loughlin [14], the essential aspect of metacognition is the ability to think explicitly about a theory that is in place in lieu of simply thinking with that theory. A person is metacognitively competent when he or she can represent his/her conceptions as objects of cognition. Therefore, meta-conceptual reflections are considered to be reflections on conceptions rather than as applications which are not reflected from them onto the explanations of the phenomena. In the present study, the term metacognition is understood in terms expressed by Kuhn et al. [14], who describe it as internal consciousness or ability to reflect on what, why, how and when you know. According to Kuhn [15] the context of a collective discourse in a classroom discussion with the aim of understanding or solving problems stimulates the students’ metaconceptual dimension of consciousness. This occurs because a collaborative learning process requires the explicitation of metacognitive reflections. In order to make a discussion productive for learning, the interlocutors must continually consider their own points of view (beliefs and conceptions) in relation to the points of view of others and thereby participate not only in terms of counterargument and conflict but also contribute to the development of shared Knowledge. In the latter case, in fact, a higher level of metacognitive awareness is required as the participants not only have to negotiate meanings but also mediate in different positions in an effort to collectively construct new ones. The development construction of shared knowledge is facilitated in a context of interaction as a greater cognitive effort is distributed among the participants. However, the 1041

TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain metacognitive competence required to develop argumentative reasoning is modeled through the exercise of gradually alternating internalised argumentative shifts, in a kind of cognitive learning. In this way, this study reveals the collaborative value of the arguments as a contribution to dialogue aimed at learning. When argumentation is perceived as competitive, participants are likely to refute their opponents' opinions and demonstrate the superiority of their own arguments. On the other hand, dialogue and collaboration allow students to broaden and deepen their points of view making it more justified and reasonable, allowing them to also understand their interlocutors´ perspective [16]. Continuing with the temporal sequence of the theoretical and investigative development proposed by Monsalve [11] a third notable moment began in the nineties and continues to date, At that time, interest emerged in the role of images in argumentation and they began to look into the argumentation as supported by multimodal audiovisual resources (image, audio, video, text, etc.). Conceptual and didactic aspects were integrated into the research that sought to deal with problems in the teaching of argumentation in an integral way and in accordance to the needs of a Knowledge-Based Society. At present, there is a significant variety of technological support systems available for the development of collaborative argumentative skills supported by the use of computers, which are called Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL). These systems provide the context for students in collaborative teams to develop and represent arguments in different formats. Several studies have demonstrated the benefits and advantages of ABCSCL in terms of expanding global understanding, building cognitive development and solving complex problems [16]. Among the most commonly used devices are those that generate the visual representations of the arguments and structure the dialogues, facilitating learning [17] Among these tools is the Digalo software, designed to provide visualization of the discussion while it is in progress, generating argumentative maps displayed on a common screen. Unlike an oral debate, participants have time to write their arguments and reflect on them. Dwyer, Hogan and Stewart [6] stated that students who used argument cartography in an e-learning course obtained a notable improvement in critical thinking skills in relation to control group students who used text tools. The argument mapping improved learning by minimizing the cognitive load involved in interpreting them. In addition, it would favor metacognitive thinking by allowing the structure of the argument to be open to evaluation and discussion, highlighting strengths and weaknesses.

3 HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT The question that guides this research is the following: Does the development of metacognitive skills favor, in turn, the development of argumentative skills? Hypothesis:

1042

N. MacCann-Alfaro et al. • Students who are trained to develop metacognitive skills improve their argumentative and metacognitive skills

4 RESEARCH OBJETIVES In General Objectives: To promote the development of argumentative skills in university students from the Social Work degree programme, through the promotion of metacognitive skills and collaborative work in a digital context. Specific objectives: Design and implement a pedagogical strategy based on the stimulation of cognitive abilities on performance in argumentative discussions. Determine the effect of the pedagogical strategy on students' metacognition and argumentation skills. Analyse the metacognitive reflections of students regarding their argumentative performance. Compare the argumentative discussions of the control group versus the experimental group. Identify factors of the learning process that may be mediating the development of argumentative skills and metacognition.

5 APPROACH AND METHODS Since the experimentation occurs in natural groups in a real context, the research has characteristics of a mixed study with a quasi-experimental design with a control group. The mixed research method consists of the combination of the quantitative and qualitative method, either in the same stage or phase of research (mixed model) or, quantitative in one phase and qualitative in the other (mixed method) [18] According to the objectives of the present study, a predominant quantitative model CUAN + cuali will be applied. Creswell and Plano [19] suggest that mixed methodology studies contribute to solving diverse research needs, in which the various elements are included to strengthen the understanding of the object of research. Using a quantitative methodology, pre and post measurement instruments will be applied, and statistical analysis will be carried out. Through the qualitative methodology, meanwhile, the process of developing the aforementioned skills will be analysed from the student´s individual self-records and the argumentative discussions of the student teams. The selected participants or target population correspond to first-year students from the Social Work degree programme of the University of Atacama, a public institution in the city of Copiapó in Chile. For convenience, the sample consits of 49 firstyear students who take a subject called The Social and Political History of Chile and are divided into two groups previously determined by the institution. For the study, two conditions are established. In the condition of experimentation, the students receive the pedagogical strategy on argumentative and metacognitive skills.

Metacognitive and Collaborative Arguing through Computers by University Students In the control condition they receive only intervention on argumentative skills. The instruments for collecting information are of a quantitative and qualitative nature: Quantitative instruments: - The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment using Everyday Situations (HCTAES) ((translated and validated in Chilean university population, 2010) - Motivation and Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MLSQ) (translated and validated in Mexican university population, 2016) [20] Qualitative instruments: - Individual digital diary (semi-structured): a student´s individual record of each session. It corresponds to a narrative record or personal reports that collect information based on a certain continuity. Based on model of motivational and cognitive components of P.R. Pintrich. - Evaluation rubric of argumentative maps based on the Toulmin model [21]. The general structure of the intervention to be developed is the following: 1 Establishment of networks and requesting of institutional support and consent of students. 2 Pre-test application to evaluate dependent variables (Argumentation and Metacognition) for control group and experimental group. 3 Design and implementation of the pedagogic strategy in its two conditions. 4 Post-test application to evaluate dependent variables (Argumentation and Metacognition) for control group and experimental group. 5 Analysis of results and conclusions.

6 RESULTS 6.1 Establishment of networks, institutional support request and student consent: In order to apply the pedagogical intervention to the indicated population, the following steps were taken to guarantee technical, administrative and ethical aspects: The teacher of the subject Social and Political History of Chile was contacted and invited to collaborate with the study. Together with the teacher, it was agreed upon to design and implement a pedagogical strategy to be inserted into the curriculum of the subject and to be implemented throughout the academic semester. The intervention proposal was submitted for approval to the academic authorities of the Department of Social Work. Likewise, the students were informed in detail about the objectives and methods of intervention, guaranteeing data protection and confidentiality.

TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain

6.2 Pretest application to evaluate dependent variables (Argumentation and Metacognition) for control group and experimental group Through the Qualtric platform, the tests were transcribed in a digital format and sent to the institutional email of the students.

6.3 Design and implementation of the pedagogical strategy: Through online media, the teacher of the subject was trained in theoretical aspects of argumentation, and case elaboration to generate argumentative discussion, as well as in the use of software. Subsequently, and always in collaboration with the teacher, the activities and work methods were determined. The teacher elaborated three cases pertinent to the contents and planning of the subject. The subject has a total of 4 pedagogical hours per week, of which two continue to be used for the presentation and analysis of contents. The other two hours are used in conducting a workshop in a computer classroom for the discussion of cases through the Digalo2 software. The workshop was developed by the teacher, and supported by the researcher through Remote Desktop of Google, allowing the joint monitoring of the students´ discussions. Both the experimental and control group function independently, yet with the same theoretical and technical materials. Each group, in turn, were divided into permanent subgroups of 5 to 6 participants. The work method is collaborative and based on the analysis and solution of the cases presented through the Digalo2 software platform. At the end of each session the software provides an argumentative map that reflects the students' interaction and the recording of individual student performance. This will serve to monitor the process and will be evaluated through the argumentative map assessment rubric based on the Toulmin model. Each session lasts 90 minutes, of which 45 correspond to argumentative discussion. The remaining 45 minutes are allocated to the recording in the individual digital Diary by the experimental group and to the elaboration of a summary of the theoretical content by the control group. Both activities are emailed to the teacher for evaluation and feedback. To date, work has been carried out in 1 of the 3 proposed cases, using 3 sessions with each group.

7 DISSERTATION STATUS In Table 1 gray indicates activities that are current and black represents activities implemented for the period 2017-2018; Indicated with a X are the activities to develop in the coming months. Table 2 represents the same indications for 2018-2019.

1043

TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain

N. MacCann-Alfaro et al.

Table 1. Activities in cycle 2017-2018

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

12

2018 11

9

2017 10

Activity

Pre-test application

Design pedagogic strategy

Specifically, this research contributes to the awareness of the relationship between teaching-learning strategies in a specific area such as History in the context of higher education. It also favours the implementation of the curriculum for the Social Work degree programme, by enriching the pedagogical work with technological tools which will allow, in the measure that it is consolidated, maintained and generalized, the increase the management in the classroom and the generation of higher quality learning in the students.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Implementation of pedagogic strategy

Post-test application

x x

This research work is made within University of Salamanca PhD Programme on Education in the Knowledge Society scope [22] as well as the Department of Social Work at the University of Atacama with special thanks to the teacher of the subject, Mr. Francisco Berrios Drolett for making this research project possible.

REFERENCES [1]

Discussion Conclusions

and

Preparation articles publication

of for

Thesis writing

8

7

x

5 6

x

4

x

3

x

2

x

1

9

Analysis of data

[2]

2019 12

2018 11

Activity

10

Table 2. Activities in cycle 2018-2019

[4]

x

x

x

x

x

x

x [5]

x

x

x

x

x

x

Administrative transactions

x

x

x x

x

x

8 CURRENT AND EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONS According to the results observed to date, it is possible to acknowledge the contribution of the use of ICT and collaborative work to the development of a systemic educational innovation model that integrates two great higher order thinking skills such as Metacognition and Argumentation. In addition, the collaborative work with the teacher has made it possible to visualise the use of ICTs not only as an instrumental tool, but rather as a complement to an organized, planned and evaluated learning process. The educational community is expected to be sensitised and held accountable for the necesity and real possibility of modifying the traditional teaching style in the classroom.

1044

[3]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] [11]

Selma Leitão. 2000. The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building. Human Development, 43, 6 (2000), 332–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000022695 Diana Landazábal, Dignora Páez and Eliécer Pineda. 2013. Diseño de una innovación pedagógica para la formación en investigación apoyada en ambientes digitales. Revista Virtual Universidad Católica del Norte 3, 40 (septiembre-diciembre 2013), Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=194229200002 Inés Guacanem, Paola Lucumí & Sonia Suárez. 2015. Discusión colaborativa de casos incorporando el ambiente de aprendizaje digalo. Retrieved from: http://reposital.cuaed.unam.mx:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/3899/1/ VE13.492.pdf UNESCO (1998) Conferencia Mundial sobre la Educación Superior La educación superior en el siglo XXI Visión y acción. París 5–9 de octubre de 1998. Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/principal/staff-s.html Lucia Mason & Marina Santi. 1994. Argumentation Structure and Metacognition in Constructing Shared Knowledge at School. Paper to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association New Orleans, LA, April, 1994. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED371041.pdf Christopher Dwyer, Michael Hogan & Ian Stewart. 2012. An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 3 (December 2012), 219-244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1 Jairo Sánchez-Castaño, Olga Castaño-Mejía & Oscar Tamayo-Alzate. 2015. La argumentación metacognitiva en el aula de ciencias/Metacognitive argumentation in the science classroom. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud 13, 2 (2015), 1153-1168. DOI:10.11600/1692715x.13242110214 Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=77340728042 Marc Lafuente & Ibis Álvarez. 2016. Promoting Student Metacognition through the Analysis of Their Own Debates.: Is it Better with Text or with Graphics? Journal of Educational Technology & Society 19, 4 (2016), 167-177. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.4.167 Dionne Cross, Gita Taasoobshirazi, Sean Hendricks & Daniel Hickey. 2008. Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education 30, 6 (2008), 837-861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701411567 Mónica Pérez & Olly Vega. 2001. Técnicas argumentativas (2nd.ed.) Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Maria Monsalve. 2015. Estado del arte de la investigación sobre argumentación y escritura multimodal desde una perspectiva

Metacognitive and Collaborative Arguing through Computers by University Students

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

didáctica. Revista Lasallista de Investigación 12, 2 (2015), 215-224. Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69542291022 Deanna Kuhn, Wendy Goh, Kalypso Iordanou & David Shaenfield. 2008. Arguing on the Computer: A Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer‐Supported Environment. Child Development, 79, 5 (September-October, 2008), 1310-1328. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x John Flavell. 1979. Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring. A New Area of Cognitive Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist 34, 10 (October, 1979), 906-911. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.34.10.906 Deanna Kuhn, Eric Amsel, Michael O'Loughlin, Leona Schauble, Bonnie Leadbeater & Williams Yotive. 1988. The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Deanna Kuhn. 1991. The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, 26 jul. 1991 - 324 páginas. Retrieved from: https://books.google.es/books?id=q0ra0DxRTNEC&printsec=frontcover &hl=es&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false Omid Noroozi, Armin Weinberger, Harm Biemans, Martin Mulder & Mohammad Chizari. 2012. Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review 7, 2 (June, 2012), 79-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006 Nathalie Mirza, Valérie Tartas, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, & Jean-

TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain

[18]

[19] [20]

[21] [22]

François de Pietro. 2007. Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2, 2-3 (September, 2007), 247-272. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5 R Burke Johnson & Anthony Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher 33, 7 (October, 2004), 14-26. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700093 John Creswell & Vicki Plano Clark.2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2a. ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. María del Carmen Ramírez. 2016. Modelo causal de los factores asociados al aprendizaje autorregulado como mediador del rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Retrieved from http://eprints.ucm.es/40522/1/T38161.pdf Stephen Toulmin. 1958. Los Usos de la Argumentación. Barcelona: Ediciones península. Francisco García-Peñalvo. 2014. Formación en la sociedad del conocimiento, un programa de doctorado con una perspectiva interdisciplinar. Education in the Knowledge Society 15, 1, 4-9.

1045