Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (1998). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giesbrecht, F. G., & Gumpertz, M. L. (2004). Planning, construction, and statistical analysis of comparative experiments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction of argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle schools. Columbus, OH: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Science education for middle level students. Retrieved November 26, 2008 from http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/PositionStatement_MiddleLevel.pdf

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M. S. R. (1997). An alternative for assessing problem-solving skills: The overall test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 373–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1997). Assessing students in small collaborative groups. Theory into Practice, 36(4), 205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84341, USA

    Brian R. Belland

Authors
  1. Brian R. Belland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian R. Belland.

Appendix A

Appendix A

See Table 6.

Table 6 Persuasive presentation rating rubric
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Belland, B.R. Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: the impact of computer-based scaffolds. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 285–309 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation