Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ Construct and Critique of Claims and Evidence Through Online Asynchronous Discussion Combined with In-Class Discussion

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines how grade 5 students engage with the aspects (construct and critique) of argument in an online asynchronous discussion combined with in-class wrap-up discussion. Grade 5 students in a rural public school engaged in a “human health investigation” unit using an argument-based inquiry approach followed by online asynchronous discussions using a Moodle forum. The online discussion was wrapped up by a 1-h in-class discussion and student writing of claims, evidence, and reflection. Data sources included online notes posted by 111 students in the Moodle forum, a video record of in-class discussion, and writing samples of claims, evidence, and reflections produced by 54 students after online and in-class discussions. Results of this study indicate that students engaged with the construct and critique components of argument in the online asynchronous discussion and in the in-class wrap-up discussion. The results show that in terms of the argument components they (a) used evidence resources to challenge and supplement arguments, (b) critiqued and reinforced evidence, and (c) strongly negotiated and confirmed/revised claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alagoz, E. (2013). Social argumentation in online synchronous communication. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 399–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–115). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument intervention in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A., Hand., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763–1783.

  • Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L., (2014). Grade 5 students’ online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267–287.

  • Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented- preset approach to seeding discussion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 321–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic framework for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, A. K. (2009). Argument reconceived. Educational Review, 61(3), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008a). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008b). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom context. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32.

  • Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iowa Department of Education. (2015). Iowa Science Standards. Retrieved May 29, 2019, from https://iowacore.gov/iowa-core/subject/science.

  • Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.

  • Lin, H., Hong, Z., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussion. Computers & Education, 59, 378–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., Hong, Z., Wang, H., & Lee, T. (2011). Using reflective peer assessment to promote students’ conceptual understanding through asynchronous discussions. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 178–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the Science Writing Heuristic approach on 8th grade science classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1111–1133.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7, 79–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57, 1348–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, K. C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C.-Y. (2015). Improving students’ PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotshy, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., & Woo, H. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, J. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2014). The effect of online collaboration on middle school student science misconceptions as an aspect of science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1103–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea

    Aeran Choi

  2. Science Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Brian Hand

Authors
  1. Aeran Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aeran Choi.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 40 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 40 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 41 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 41 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 41 kb)

ESM 6

(DOCX 41 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, A., Hand, B. Students’ Construct and Critique of Claims and Evidence Through Online Asynchronous Discussion Combined with In-Class Discussion. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 1023–1040 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10005-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10005-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation