Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argue like a scientist with technology: the effect of within-gender versus cross-gender team argumentation on science knowledge and argumentation skills among middle-level students

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

Abstract

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore the effect of within-gender and cross-gender team argumentation on seventh graders’ science knowledge and argumentation skills in a computer-assisted learning environment in the United States. A total of 58 students were engaged in the collaborative within-gender team argumentation process (the treatment condition), while 46 students were engaged in the collaborative cross-gender team argumentation process (the control condition). Verbal collaborative argumentation was recorded and the students’ post essays were collected. There were no statistically significant differences in science knowledge between the treatment and control conditions either for the combined set of students, or for females and males considered separately. For the combined set of male and female students, MANOVA indicated no statistically significant within-gender/cross-gender team argumentation differences in argumentation skills. Similarly, no significant within-gender/cross-gender team argumentation differences were observed among females. However, this study found a marginally significant difference in argumentation skills between male students in the within-gender team argumentation (treatment condition) and male students in the cross-gender team argumentation (control condition). A qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the computer-assisted application supported students’ development of argumentation skills in within-gender and cross-gender team argumentation. Female teams, regardless of within-gender or cross-gender team argumentation, demonstrated balanced participation in the construction of argumentation maps in the application. Male teams in within-gender team argumentation (the treatment condition) demonstrated unbalanced participation in the construction of argumentation maps in the application.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abnett, C., Stanton, D., Neale, H., & O’Malley, C. (2001). The effect of multiple input devices on collaboration and gender issues. In European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (EuroCSCL) 2001 (pp. 29–36). Maastricht: University of Bath. Retrieved from http://opus.bath.ac.uk/9674/.

  • Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. Arguing to learn (pp. 1–25). Dordrect: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2011). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9194-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., & Johnson, M. (1973). Consideration of some problems of comprehension. In W. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 383–483). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, G. A., Beeman-Cadwallader, N. M., & Trauth-Nare, A. E. (2012). Keeping the girls visible in K-12 science education efforts: A feminist case study on problem-based learning. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2012002317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffery, A., & Gray, J. (1972). Sex differences in the development of spatial and linguistic skills. In C. Ounsted & D. C. Taylor (Eds.), Gender differences, their ontogeny and significance (pp. 123–158). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, P. J., Crawford, M., Hyde, J. S., & Richardson, J. T. E. (1997). Gender differences in human cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense making. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Arr (Eds.), Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation (pp. 75–96). London: Springer.

  • Caspi, A., Chajut, E., & Saporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and in online discussions: Gender differences. Computers & Education, 50(3), 718–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

  • Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, C.-W., Lee, C.-C., & Liu, C.-C. (2013). Investigating face-to-face peer interaction patterns in a collaborative Web discovery task: the benefits of a shared display. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 188–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, M. W. (2014). Gender-specific instructional strategies and student achievement in 5th grade classrooms. Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/2624.

  • Ding, N., Bosker, R. J., & Harskamp, E. G. (2009). How gender composition influences individual knowledge elaboration in CSCL. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning (Vol. 1, pp. 173–177). Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1600053.1600079.

  • Ding, N., Bosker, R. J., & Harskamp, E. G. (2011). Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 56(2), 325–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012a). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012b). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., & Carver, S. M. (2009). Constructing causal diagrams to learn deliberation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(4), 425–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, H. (1976). Sex differences in cognition. Cognition, 4, 231–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes toward science and attitudes about the utility of science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 571–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., Star, J., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science (NCER 2007-2003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov.

  • Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and instruction, 12(4), 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P.-S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2015). The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 32–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P.-S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2016). A cross-cultural study of the effect of a project-based learning environment that incorporates a graph-oriented, computer-assisted application on middle school students’ science knowledge and scientific argumentation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 51–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberty, C. J., & Olejnik, S. (2006). Applied MANOVA and discriminant analysis (Vol. 498). New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2010.485335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (1978). Girls and science: An international study of sex differences in school science achievement. IEA Monograph Studies, No. 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvistwiksell International.

  • Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1996). Student’s interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<693:AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I.

  • Kiili, C. (2012). Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00492.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korobov, N. (2013). Positioning identities: A discursive approach to the negotiation of gendered categories. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.23.1.06kor.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2011). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310–1328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638531003653344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (2013). Computers as cognitive tools. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62, 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W. W. K., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Gender differences of knowledge sharing in online learning environment. In R. Kwan, J. Fong, L. Kwok, & J. Lam (Eds.), Hybrid Learning (pp. 116–128). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22763-9_11.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 553–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2004_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00224.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, D. M., & Cooc, N. (2015). Science achievement gaps by gender and race/ethnicity in elementary and middle school trends and predictors. Educational Researcher, 44(6), 336–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. 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 

  • Robinson, A., Pérez-Quiñones, M. A., & Scales, G. (2016). African-American middle school girls: Influences on attitudes toward computer science. Computing in Science & Engineering, 18(3), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Enderle, P. J., & Walker, J. P. (2012). The development and validation of the assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom (ASAC) observation protocol: A tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation. Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 235–264). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe, E. H. (2004). Gender and discourse, gender and categorization: Current developments in language and gender research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(2), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088704qp007oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W. (2011). Assessment of (computer-supported) collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, F. R., Kapur, M., Madden, S., & Shipe, S. (2015). Exploring the role of “gendered” discourse styles in online science discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.994113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarim, S. D., & Kyratzis, A. (2012). Challenging and orienting to monolingual school norms in Turkish American children’s peer disputes and classroom negotiations at a U.S. Turkish Saturday school. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 15, 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1537-4661(2012)0000015012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatrapu, R. K. (2008). Cultural considerations in computer supported collaborative learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(2), 159–201. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206808000501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. (2012). Gender differences in student motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A multi-group structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1347–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, A. G., Cakir, M., Peterson, C. M., & Ray, C. M. (2014). The relationship between gender and classroom environment in Turkish science classrooms. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(20), 893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. T. (1996). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, Z., Fong, P. S. W., Mei, H., & Liang, T. (2015). Effects of gender grouping on students’ group performance, individual achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Technology, Research and Assessment, Northern Illinois University, 101C Gabel Hall, DeKalb, IL, USA

    Pi-Sui Hsu & Thomas J. Smith

  2. O’Neill Middle School, 635 59th St, Downers Grove, IL, USA

    Margot Van Dyke

  3. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Chee-Kit Looi

Authors
  1. Pi-Sui Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margot Van Dyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas J. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chee-Kit Looi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pi-Sui Hsu.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Student sample post essay

Appendix 2: Science knowledge rubric

Criteria

0 points

1 point

2 points

3 points

Scientific facts presented

No facts presented

1 fact presented

2 facts presented

3 or more facts presented

Scientific explanation stated to support facts

No explanation

1 statement of explanation

2 statements of explanation

3 statements of explanation

Scientific validity of facts/explanation

3 or more facts/explanation statements are false

2 facts/explanation statements are false

1 fact/explanation statement is false

All statements are valid

Appendix 3: Correct logic for scoring argumentation skills in individual essay

Example 1:

(Indicate a Position)–(Indicate Reasons)–(Indicate Evidence)–(Indicate Counterarguments)–(Indicate Rebuttals)

Example 2:

(Indicate a Position)–(Indicate Reasons)–(Indicate Evidence)–(Indicate Counterargument)–(Indicate Rebuttal))–(Indicate Counterargument)–(Indicate Rebuttal)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsu, PS., Van Dyke, M., Smith, T.J. et al. Argue like a scientist with technology: the effect of within-gender versus cross-gender team argumentation on science knowledge and argumentation skills among middle-level students. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 733–766 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9574-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9574-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation