Abstract
Little is known about the role of prompts to help learners solve ill-structured learning problems. Instructors do not devote adequate time to formulate pedagogically useful prompts, and the usefulness of different types of prompt is unclear. This mixed-methods study examined the role of argumentative prompts in the writing of essays based on business case studies. A significant (p < .001) relationship with a large effect size was found between the type of argumentative prompt (rhetorical and dialectical) and argumentative depth. Alternative argumentative positions were found to significantly (p < .001) mediate the relationship between argumentative prompt type argumentative depth with a large effect size. Verification and elaboration strategies were utilized in a similar way across both rhetorical and dialectical prompts. Dialectical prompts did not appear to be more effective than rhetorical prompts when using evidence strategies. Rebuttal appeared to be utilized more in response to dialectical prompts. The implications are that instructors should ensure that both rhetorical and dialectal prompts are provided in assignments involving ill-structured learning problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458.
Baars, M., Van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2017). Effects of problem solving after worked example study on secondary school children’s monitoring accuracy. Educational Psychology, 37(7), 810–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1150419.
Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–17). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bergstrom, C. M., Pugh, K. J., Phillips, M. M., & Machlev, M. (2016). Effects of problem-based learning on recognition learning and transfer accounting for GPA and goal orientation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 764–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1083521.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Byun, H., Lee, J., & Cerreto, F. A. (2014). Relative effects of three questioning strategies in ill-structured instructional/academic, small group problem solving. Instructional Science, 42(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s112510013-9278-1.
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022.
Collins, R. H., Sibthorp, J., & Gookin, J. (2016). Developing ill-structured instructional/academic problem-solving skills through wilderness education. Journal of Experiential Education, 39(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825915539611.
Cooper, A. K., & Oliver-Hoyo, M. (2016). Argument construction in understanding noncovalent interactions: A comparison of two argumentation frameworks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1006–1018. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00109B.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Deans, T. (2017). One-credit writing-intensive courses in the disciplines: Results from a study of four departments. Across the Disciplines, 14(1), 1–25.
Ferguson, C. F. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538.
Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). Sage.
Gallagher, S. A. (2015). The role of problem-based learning in developing creative expertise. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9367-8.
Ge, X., & Land, S. (2006). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504836.
Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00251.x.
Gonzales, A. H., & Nelson, L. M. (2005). Learner-centered instruction promotes student success: Northface University prepares its computer science students for the workplace with real-world projects. THE Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 32(6), 10–15.
Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., Broome, B., Hall, T., Ryan, C. (2015) Investigating the effects of prompts on argumentation style consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9223-1.
Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., & Quinn, S. (2017). Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9263-9
Huang, K., Chen, C.-H., Wu, W.-S., & Wei-Yu, C. (2015). Interactivity of question prompts and feedback on secondary students’ science knowledge acquisition and cognitive load. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 159–171.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260.
Kern, C. L., & Crippen, K. J. (2017). The effect of scaffolding strategies for inscriptions and argumentation in a science cyberlearning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9649-x.
Lazarou, D., Sutherland, R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.008.
Lefstein, A. (2018). Moving teacher learning from the margins to the mainstream. Practical Literacy, 23(1), 35–37.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2013). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. Routledge.
Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counter argumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE Journal, 3, 3351–3353. Retrieved from http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335.
McMillan, J. H., & Foley, J. (2011). Reporting and discussing effect size: Still the road less traveled? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 16, 1–11.
McNabb, D. E. (2010). Research methods for political science. Sage.
Miller, R., Mitchell, T., & Pessoa, S. (2016). Impact of source texts and prompts on students’ genre uptake. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.001.
O’Hallaron, C. L. (2014). Supporting fifth-grade ELLs’ argumentative writing development. Written Communication, 31(3), 304–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314536524.
Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x.
Özdem Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: Science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500603.2017.1336807.
Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlw.2014.09.003.
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2016). Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.001.
Riis, J. O., Achenbach, M., Israelsen, P., Kyvsgaard Hansen, P., Johansen, J., & Deuse, J. (2017). Dealing with complex and ill-structured instructional/academic problems: Results of a Plan-Do-Check-Act experiment in a business engineering semester. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(4), 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1189881.
Shin, S., & Song, H.-D. (2016). Finding the optimal scaffoldings for learners’ epistemological beliefs during ill-structured instructional/academic problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 2032–2047. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1073749.
Shute, V. J., Wang, L., Greiff, S., Zhao, W., & Moore, G. (2016). Measuring problem solving skills via stealth assessment in an engaging video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.047.
Spatariu, A., Winsor, D. L., Simpson, C., & Hosman, E. (2016). Further classification and methodological considerations of evaluations for online discussion in instructional settings. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 43–52.
Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. A. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006.
Tawfik, A. A. (2017). Do cases teach themselves? A comparison of case library prompts in supporting problem-solving during argumentation. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(2), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9136-2.
Timmers, C. F., Walraven, A., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2015). The effect of regulation feedback in a computer-based formative assessment on information problem solving. Computers & Education, 87, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.012.
Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). Statistical significance should not be considered as one of life’s guarantees. Effect sizes are needed. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971194.
Walton, D. N. (2006). Epistemic and dialectical models of begging the question. Synthese, 152, 237–284.
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s Statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70, 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.
Wasserstein, R., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. The American Statistician, 73, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913.
Yale School of Management. (2018). SELCO. Retrieved from http://vol10.cases.som.yale.edu/selco.
Yoon, H. J., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.296.
Zorwick, L. W., & Wade, J. M. (2016). Enhancing civic education through the use of assigned advocacy, argumentation, and debate across the curriculum. Communication Education, 65(4), 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1203005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This study was not funded by any agency.
Research involved in human or animal participants
This research project does not involve human subjects.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Malogianni, C., Luo, T., Stefaniak, J. et al. An exploration of the relationship between argumentative prompts and depth to elicit alternative positions in ill-structured problem solving. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 2353–2375 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10019-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10019-2