Instructional Science

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 127–153 | Cite as

Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments

  • Miika Marttunen
  • Leena Laurinen
Article

Abstract

In a teaching experiment 16 face-to-face and 11 e-mailFinnish university students studied academic debatingin an argumentation course. The 19 students of thecontrol group did not engage in the course. The courseinvolved two lectures, exercises with argumentativetexts, and face-to-face or e-mail seminar discussionsbased on these texts. Free debate, role play,problem-solving and panel discussion were the devicesused in organizing the course. The level of thestudents' argumentation skills were measured in apretest before the course and in a post-test after it.The results were compared between and within thegroups. The results indicated that during the e-mailstudies the students learned to identify and chooserelevant grounds, while the face-to-face studentsimproved in putting forward counterargumentation. Thecontrol group did not improve in these skills. Thestudy suggests that argumentation skills can bepromoted by short-term e-mail and face-to-faceteaching, and that practising argumentation indifferent learning environments develops differentkinds of argumentation skills.

argumentation critical thinking electronic mail networked learning computer-mediated communication computer based learning higher education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. Management Information Systems Quarterly 18: 159–174.Google Scholar
  2. Anderberg, M. (1973). Cluster Analysis for Applications. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Atwater, T. (1991). Critical thinking in basic U.S. government classes. Political Science and Politics 24: 209–211.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, R. (1997). Computer conferencing: Discourse, education and conflict mediation. Computers and Education 29: 153–161.Google Scholar
  5. Bacig, T.D., Evans, R.H., Larmouth, D.W. & Risdon, K.C. (1990). Beyond argumentation and comparison/contrast: Extending the Socrates CAI design principles to classroom teaching and the interpretation and production of other forms of discourse. Computers and the Humanities 24: 15–41.Google Scholar
  6. Banta, T.W. (1993). Toward a plan for using national assessment to ensure continuous improvement of higher education. The Journal of General Education 42: 33–58.Google Scholar
  7. Berge, Z.L. (1997). Computer conferencing and the on-line classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 3: 3–21.Google Scholar
  8. Bensley, A.D. & Haynes, C. (1995). The acquisition of general purpose strategic knowledge for argumentation. Teaching of Psychology 22: 41–45.Google Scholar
  9. Björk, L. & Räisänen, C. (1996). Academic Writing. A University Writing Course. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  10. Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction (5th edn.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Broady, D. (1986). Piilo-opetussunnitelma [The hidden curriculum]. Tampere Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  13. Corrie, M. & Zaklukiewicz, S. (1989). Qualitative research and case-study approaches: An introduction. In S. Hegarty & P. Evans, eds, Research and Evaluation Methods in Special Education: Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques in Case Study Work (pp. 114–139). Oxford: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  14. D'Souza, P.V. (1991). The use of electronic mail as an instructional aid: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 18: 106–110.Google Scholar
  15. Garton, L. & Wellman, B. (1995). Social impacts of electronic mail in organization: A review of the research literature. In B.R. Burleson, ed, Communication Yearbook 18 (pp. 434–453). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Gow, L. & D. Kember. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning. Higher Education 19: 307–322.Google Scholar
  17. Hacker, R. & Sova, B. (1998). Initial teacher education: a study of the efficacy of computermediated courseware delivery in a partnership context. British Journal of Educational Technology 29: 333–341.Google Scholar
  18. Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim, ed, Online Education. Perspectives on a New Environment (pp. 39–64). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  19. Haughey, M. & Anderson, T. (1998). Networked Learning. The Pedagogy of the Internet. Montreal: Cheneliere.Google Scholar
  20. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye, ed, Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Hiltz, S.R. (1997). Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: Some preliminary results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 1: 1–19.Google Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J. & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 9: 7–26.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D., Mayes, T. & Mcaleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D.H. Jonassen, eds, Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 231–247). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. King, P.M., Wood, P.K. & Mines, R.A. (1990). Critical thinking among college and graduate students. The Review of Higher Education 13: 167–186.Google Scholar
  25. Littlefield, R.S. (1995). Teaching argumentation and debate skills to young children: Bridging theory and practice. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair & C.A. Willard, eds, Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Reconstruction and Application. Vol. III (pp. 287–296). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  26. Lucas, W. (1998). Effects of e-mail on the organization. European Management Journal 16: 18–29.Google Scholar
  27. Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skills among Finnish university students. Learning and Instruction 4: 175–191.Google Scholar
  28. Marttunen, M. (1997). Studying Argumentation in Higher Education by Electronic Mail. Jyväskylä, University of Jyväskylä. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research 127.Google Scholar
  29. Marttunen, M. (1998). Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 18: 387–405.Google Scholar
  30. Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (1999). Learning of argumentation in face-to-face and e-mail environments. In F.H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair & C.A. Willard, eds, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 552–558). Amsterdam: Sic Sat, International Centre for the Study of argumentation.Google Scholar
  31. Mauranen, A. (1993). Opiskelijan diskurssimaailmat-vaihto-opiskelijoiden perspektiivi [The students' discourse worlds-exchange students' perspective]. In H. Jalkanen & L. Lestinen, eds, Korkeakoulu-opetuksen kriisi. Artikkelikokoelma Jyväskylässä 19.-20.8.1993 järjestetystä korkeakoulutuksen tutkimuksen V symposiumista (pp. 169–188). Jyväskylä: Kasvatustieteiden tutkimuslaitos.Google Scholar
  32. McCann, T.M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English 23: 62–76.Google Scholar
  33. McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education 43: 159–170.Google Scholar
  34. McMillan, J.H. (1987). Enhancing college students' critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education 26: 3–29.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, M.M. (1991). Electronic conferencing in the networked classroom. College Teaching 39: 136–139.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, K.L., Drabier, R. & Epps, M.L. (1998). A constructivistic look at interaction and collaboration via computer conceferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 4: 237–261.Google Scholar
  37. Newman, D.R., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C. & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported seminars. Interpersonal Computing and Technology 4: 57–74.Google Scholar
  38. Olaniran, B.A. (1994). Group performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication media. Management Communication Quarterly 7: 256–281.Google Scholar
  39. Oostdam, R. & De Globber, K. (1998). Students' Skill in Judging Argument Validity. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Argumentation (ISSA), June 16–19. University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. Pascarella, E.T. (1989). The development of critical thinking: Does college make a difference? Journal of College Student Development 30: 19–26.Google Scholar
  41. Perkins, D.N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology 77: 562–571.Google Scholar
  42. Quinn, C.N., Mehan, H., Levin, J.A. & Black, S.D. (1983). Real education in non-real time: The use of electronic message systems for instruction. Instructional Science 4: 313–327.Google Scholar
  43. Ruberg, L.F., Moore, D.M. & Taylor, C.D. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research 14: 243–268.Google Scholar
  44. Simons, P.R.J. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D.H. Jonassen, eds, Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 291–313). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  45. Steinberg, E.R. (1992). The potential of computer-based telecommunications for instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 19: 42–46.Google Scholar
  46. Terenzini, P.T., Spinger, L., Pascarella, E.T. & Nora A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education 36: 23–39.Google Scholar
  47. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (1994). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F.H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst, eds, Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  49. Voss, J.F., Blais, J., Means, M.L., Greene, T.R. & Ahwesh, E. (1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economics problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction 3: 269–302.Google Scholar
  50. Voss, J.F. & Means, M.L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction 1: 337–350.Google Scholar
  51. Wesp, R. & Montgomery, K. (1998). Developing critical thinking through the study of paranormal phenomena. Teaching of Psychology 25: 275–278.Google Scholar
  52. Zucchermaglio, C. (1993). Towards a cognitive ergonomics of educational technology. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D.H. Jonassen, eds, Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 249–260). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miika Marttunen
    • 1
  • Leena Laurinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations