Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 537–556 | Cite as

Experimental evidence for diagramming benefits in science writing

  • Brendan Barstow
  • Lisa Fazio
  • Christian Schunn
  • Kevin Ashley
Article

Abstract

Arguing for the need for a scientific research study (i.e. writing an introduction to a research paper) poses significant challenges for students. When faced with these challenges, students often generate overly safe replications (i.e. fail to find and include opposition to their hypothesis) or in contrast include no strong support for their hypothesis (i.e. relevant, valid evidence). How can we support novice scientists in generating and defending high quality hypotheses? A long history of research supports the affordances provided by structured representations of complex information. More recently, argument diagramming has gained traction in instruction for philosophy, social studies, and law. However, its effectiveness for supporting students in science is relatively untested. The purpose of the current study was to test the effectiveness of a simple argument diagram optimized for supporting students’ research writing in psychology. Two groups of undergraduate students in research methods lab courses were randomly assigned to diagramming support or no support. In the research papers, those given diagramming support were more likely to argue for an appropriately ‘risky’ hypothesis and wrote more about the relevance and validity of cited studies. Some of these gains show signs of transfer to a second paper written later in the course that did not require use of the diagramming tool.

Keywords

Argument diagram Science writing Scaffolds Argumentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Work on this project was funded by Grant IIS-1122504 from the National Science Foundation to the 3rd and 4th authors.

References

  1. Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, R., & Mitchell, S. (2001). Essays in argument. Middlesex University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barstow, B., Fazio, L., Lippman, J., Falakmasir, M., Schunn, C., & Ashley, K. (2017). The impacts of domain-general vs. domain-specific diagramming tools on writing. International Journal of artificial intelligence in education.Google Scholar
  4. Barstow, B. J., Schunn, C. D., Fazio, L. K., Falakmasir, M. H., & Ashley, K. (2015). Improving science writing in research methods classes through computerized argument diagramming. In Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the cognitive science society.Google Scholar
  5. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (2016). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1992). Diagrammatic reasoning in scientific discovery: modeling Galileo’s kinematic diagrams. In H. Narayanan (Ed.), AAAI technical report on reasoning with diagrammatic representations (Report No. SS-92-02, pp. 33–38). Menlo Park: CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  7. Cheng, P. C.-H., & Simon, H. A. (1992). The right representation for discovery: Finding the conservation of momentum. In D. Sleeman & P. Edwards (Eds.), Machine learning: Proceedings of the ninth international conference (pp. 62–71). San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chryssafidou, E. (2014). Argument diagramming and planning cognition in argumentative writing (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  11. Chryssafidou, E., & Sharples, M. (2002). Computer-supported planning of essay argument structure. International society for the study of argumentation proceedings 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2012.725187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition & Learning, 7, 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, R., & Kang, N.-H. (2012). The structure of scientific arguments by secondary science teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98–107. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1995.9941200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2012). Rational argument. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 277–300). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrell, M. (2008). No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy, 31, 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrell, M. (2012). Assessing the efficacy of argument diagramming to teach critical thinking skills in introduction to philosophy. Inquiry, 27(2), 31–38. doi: 10.5840/inquirtyct201227210.Google Scholar
  21. Harrell, M. (2013). Improving first-year writing using argument diagramming. In Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Google Scholar
  22. Holden, M. P., Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Categorical biases in spatial memory: The role of certainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 473–481.Google Scholar
  23. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D. (2013). Reasoning. In P. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 744–764). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Tracing the development of argumentive writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33(1), 92–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch, C. (2014). The diagnosticity of argument diagrams. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  28. Lynch, C., Ashley, K. D., & Chi, M. (2014). Can diagrams predict essay grades? Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8474, 260–265. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07221-0_32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandler, J. M., & Ritchey, G. H. (1977). Long-term memory for pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(4), 386–396. doi: 10.3758/BF03196949.Google Scholar
  30. Novick, L. R. (2000). Spatial diagrams: Key instruments in the toolbox for thought. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 40(2000), 279–325. doi: 10.1016/s0079-7421(00)80023-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oostdam, R. J., & Emmelot, Y. W. (1991). Education in argumentation skills at Dutch secondary schools. In Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  33. Oostdam, R., Glopper, K. D., & Eiting, M. H. (1994). Argumentation in written discourse: Secondary school students’ writing problems. Studies in Pragma-dialectcs. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  34. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347. doi: 10.1002/tea.21073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ozmen, R. G. (2011). Comparison of two different presentations of graphic organizers in recalling information in expository texts with intellectually disabled students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 785–793.Google Scholar
  36. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., David, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156–163. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80067-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Standing, L. (1973). Learning 10000 pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(2), 207–222. doi: 10.1080/14640747308400340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Trafton, J. G., Trickett, S. B., & Mintz, F. E. (2005). Connecting internal and external representations: Spatial transformations of scientific visualizations. Foundations of Science, 10, 89–106. doi: 10.1007/s10699-005-3007-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argument-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Westerman, D. L., Lanska, M., & Olds, J. M. (2015). The effect of processing fluency on impressions of familiarity and liking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 426–438.Google Scholar
  49. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LRDCUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Psychology and Human DevelopmentVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations