Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: the impact of computer-based scaffolds

Research

Abstract

A critical step in problem-based learning (PBL) units occurs when groups present their solution to the central problem. This is challenging for middle school students because it involves the creation of an evidence-based argument (Krajcik et al., Journal of the Learning Sciences 7:313–350, 1998). Using a mixed method design, this study investigated (a) the impact of computer-based argumentation scaffolds on middle school students’ argumentation ability, and (b) what middle school students used for support and why during a PBL unit. Data sources included persuasive presentation rating scores, argument evaluation ability test, videotaped class sessions, and prompted interviews. Results included a significant impact on average-achieving students’ argument evaluation ability, and use of the scaffolds by the small groups to plan their research and keep organized.

Keywords

Evidence-based arguments Middle school Science education Computer-based scaffolds Problem-based learning 

References

  1. ACT. (2008). The forgotten middle: Ensuring that all students are on target for college and career readiness before high school. Iowa City, IA: Author. http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ForgottenMiddle.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2008.
  2. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., & Dodge, T. (2008). Strategies for designing embodied curriculum. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboër, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 97–110). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL ‘97: The second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  7. Belland, B. R. (2008). Supporting middle school students’ construction of evidence-based arguments: Impact of and student interactions with computer-based argumentation scaffolds (Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN). Dissertation Abstracts International 69/09 Publication No. AAT 3330215.Google Scholar
  8. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 333–356.Google Scholar
  13. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crockett, L. J., Schulenberg, J. E., & Petersen, A. C. (1987). Congruence between objective and self-report data in a sample of young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2(4), 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 423–437.Google Scholar
  19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (1998). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finch, P. M. (1999). The effect of problem-based learning on the academic performance of students studying podiatric medicine in Ontario. Medical Education, 33, 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 332–362.Google Scholar
  22. Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 257–275.Google Scholar
  23. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giesbrecht, F. G., & Gumpertz, M. L. (2004). Planning, construction, and statistical analysis of comparative experiments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  27. Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91, 1010–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knudson, R. E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade, and sex on students’ persuasive writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 59(2), 141–152.Google Scholar
  35. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction of argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O’Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108–144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.Google Scholar
  40. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lohman, M. C., & Finkelstein, M. (2000). Designing groups in problem-based learning to promote problem-solving skill and self-directedness. Instructional Science, 28, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mehalik, M. M., Doppett, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.Google Scholar
  45. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle schools. Columbus, OH: Author.Google Scholar
  46. National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Science education for middle level students. Retrieved November 26, 2008 from http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/PositionStatement_MiddleLevel.pdf
  47. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  49. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002–2003). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-based learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 303–320.Google Scholar
  51. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation [The new rhetoric: Treatise on argumentation] (Vol. 1–2). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  52. Quintana, C., Reiser, J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Segers, M. S. R. (1997). An alternative for assessing problem-solving skills: The overall test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Webb, N. M. (1997). Assessing students in small collaborative groups. Theory into Practice, 36(4), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional Technology and Learning SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations