Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 929–947 | Cite as

Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions

  • Markus H. Hefter
  • Kirsten Berthold
  • Alexander Renkl
  • Werner Riess
  • Sebastian Schmid
  • Stefan Fries
Article

Abstract

Argumentation skills play a crucial role in science education and in preparing school students to act as informed citizens. While processing conflicting scientific positions regarding topics such as sustainable development in the domain of ecology, argumentation skills such as evaluating arguments or supporting theories with evidence are beneficial for developing deep understanding and well-grounded conclusions. We developed a 50-min training intervention to foster argumentation skills in the domain of ecology on topics related to sustainable development and analyzed its effects in a control-group design: (a) training intervention to foster argumentation skills (n = 41), (b) no such training intervention (n = 42). Results showed that this short-term training intervention successfully fostered three components of argumentation skills (i.e., evaluative knowledge, generative knowledge, and argument quality) and declarative knowledge about argumentation. The positive effect on declarative knowledge was stable 1 week after the training and it was mediated by learning processes during the training intervention: self-explaining the principles of argumentation underlying the video-based examples mediated the effect on declarative knowledge 1 week after the training. In short, the training intervention is an effective instructional method to enhance argumentation skills as well as declarative knowledge about argumentation.

Keywords

Argumentation Training intervention Self-explanations Mediation Conflicting scientific positions Sustainable development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research in the article was funded by the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [German Research Foundation]” (DFG, GZ: BE 4391/1-1) as part of the Special Priority Program “Science and the General Public: Understanding Fragile and Conflicting Scientific Evidence” (Spokesperson of the program: Prof. Rainer Bromme). We would like to thank the following student research assistants: Lea Marie Stieghorst for her acting performance in a video-based example, her assistance in conducting the experiment and in coding the qualitative data, Jörn Weitz for his assistance in conducting the experiment and in coding the qualitative data, Christoph Carstens and Anna Mittelstädt for their acting performance in the video-based examples and their assistance in conducting the experiment, Dominik Bruhn, Manuel Hellmann, and Alexander Tombrink for their acting performance in the video-based examples, Nadine Ellerbrake for her assistance in coding the qualitative data, Matthias Sandmann for his assistance in conducting the experiment, Florian Kopp for his assistance in programming the computer-based environment, and native speaker of English Stewart Campbell for proofreading the manuscript. Finally, we would like to thank all students who took part in our experiment as well as all teachers, the schools’ personnel, and all of those involved in establishing contact to the schools for their support.

References

  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentz, B. J., Régnière, J., Fettig, C. J., Hansen, E. M., Hayes, J. L., Hicke, J. A., et al. (2010). Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. BioScience, 60(8), 602–613. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37(4), 345–363. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9051-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87. doi: 10.1037/a0013247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busch, C., Renkl, A., & Schworm, S. (2008). Towards a generic self-explanation training intervention for example-based learning. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P. A. Kirschner & F. J. Prins (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Utrecht, Netherlands: ICLS.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellenberg, H. (2009). Vegetation ecology of central Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, K. R., Alexander, P., & Graham, S. (2008). Michael Pressley’s contributions to the history and future of strategies research. Educational Psychologist, 43(2), 86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. doi: 10.1080/03637750903310360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Kessler, S., & Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to prove in geometry: Learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 54–65. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huck, S. W. (2008). Statistical Misconceptions. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  17. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. doi: 10.1002/sce.20395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lao, J., & Kuhn, D. (2002). Cognitive engagement and attitude development. Cognitive Development, 17(2), 1203–1217. doi: 10.1016/s0885-2014(02)00117-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, H. S., & Anderson, J. R. (2013). Student learning: What has instruction got to do with it? Annual Review of Psychology, 64(64), 445–469. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Mediating variable. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 9503–9507). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 103–128. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. doi: 10.3758/bf03206553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quinn, H., Schweingruber, H., & Keller, T. E. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. Renkl, A. (2009). Wissenserwerb. In E. Wild & J. Möller (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie [Educational psychology] (pp. 3–26). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Renkl, A. (2011). Instruction based on examples. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 272–295). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulte, P., Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., Arz, J. A., Barton, P. J., Bown, P. R., et al. (2010). The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Science, 327(5970), 1214–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Aysmptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus H. Hefter
    • 1
  • Kirsten Berthold
    • 1
  • Alexander Renkl
    • 2
  • Werner Riess
    • 3
  • Sebastian Schmid
    • 4
  • Stefan Fries
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Didactics of BiologyUniversity of EducationFreiburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of EducationUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations