Abstract
Students engaged in problem-based learning (PBL) units solve ill-structured problems in small groups, and then present arguments in support of their solution. However, middle school students often struggle developing evidence-based arguments (Krajcik et al., J Learn Sci 7:313–350, 1998). Using a mixed method design, the researchers examined the use of computer-based argumentation scaffolds, called the Connection Log, to help middle school students build evidence-based arguments. Specifically we investigated (a) the impact of computer-based argumentation scaffolds on middle school students’ construction of evidence-based arguments during a PBL unit, and (b) scaffold use among members of two small groups purposefully chosen for case studies. Data sources included a test of argument evaluation ability, persuasive presentation rating scores, informal observations, videotaped class sessions, and retrospective interviews. Findings included a significant simple main effect on argument evaluation ability among lower-achieving students, and use of the scaffolds by the small groups to communicate and keep organized.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alberts, B. (2003). On creating a “scientific temper”. Science literacy for the twenty-first century (pp. 57–61). Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Apple, M. W. (1975). The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists (pp. 95–119). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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 (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
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.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academies Press.
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.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 333–356.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
Chang, C., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1999). The use of a problem-solving-based instructional model in initiating change in students’ achievement and alternative frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 373–388.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
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.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., & Oser, R. L. (2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computer-based learning. Instructional Science, 30, 433–464.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (1998). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661–679.
Flavell, J. F. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
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, 332–362.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.
Giesbrecht, F. G., & Gumpertz, M. L. (2004). Planning, construction, and statistical analysis of comparative experiments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 105–118.
Guzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education to promote conceptual change in science. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–161.
Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
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: Vol. II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291–307.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1955). De la logique de l’enfant à la logique de l’adolescent: Essai sur la construction des structures opératoires formelles [From the logic of the child to the logic of the adolescent: Essay on the construction of formal operations]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362–381.
Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kinney, D. A., Rosier, K. B., & Harger, (2003). The educational institution. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 575–599). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Knudson, R. E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade, and sex on students’ persuasive writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 141–152.
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.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition & Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction of argumentive reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
Kyza, E., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students’ coordination of theory and practice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 545–560.
Lather, P. (2003). Issues of validity in openly ideological research. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief (pp. 185–215). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2003). What makes a student group successful? Student–student and student–teacher interaction in a problem-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 6, 59–76.
Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21.
Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). The condition of education 2006: Indicator 7: Language Minority School-Age Children. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/pdf/07_2006.pdf.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79–83.
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K 12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.
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.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 643–658.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451.
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, 303–320.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation [The new rhetoric: Treatise on argumentation] (Vols. 1–2). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.
Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher-order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523–553.
Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
Sandstrom, K. L., & Fine, G. A. (2003). Triumphs, emerging voices, and the future. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 1041–1057). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
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.
Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41–72.
Stryker, S. (2001). Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic interactionism: The road to identity theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 211–231). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher-order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Drs. Peg Ertmer and Brian French for their many helpful comments on this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Belland, B.R., Glazewski, K.D. & Richardson, J.C. Problem-based learning and argumentation: testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instr Sci 39, 667–694 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z