Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Playing a for or Against a Controversial Position on Elementary Students’ Ability to Construct Cogent Arguments

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of requiring elementary students to participate in a detective role-playing game, within which students had to be for or against a controversial issue. Three intact sixth grade classes (N = 94) participated in this study. One class of students was asked to search for supporting evidence for one side of an online ethics dilemma and to create convincing arguments (pro), while another searched for opposing evidence (con). The third other class searched for both supporting and opposing evidence (balanced). A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance shows that the balanced role-play strategy had a notable positive impact on the students’ ability to construct cogent arguments.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Netherlands: Springer.

  • Bell, P. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. doi:10.1080/095006900412284.

    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 

  • Braund, M., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Koopman, R. (2013). First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(2), 175–184. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza, V., Lesgold, A. M., & Weiner, A. W. (1992). Strategies for contributing to collaborative arguments. Paper presented at the the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale.

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623:aid-tea3>3.0.co;2-o.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K. L., & 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felton, M. K. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19(1), 35–52. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105–118. doi:10.1348/000709904x22278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H.-H., Hsu, J. S.-C., & Ku, C.-Y. (2012). Understanding the role of computer-mediated counter-argument in countering confirmation bias. Decision Support Systems, 53(3), 438–447. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.03.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (Vol. 35, pp. 3–27). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871. doi:10.1080/0950069980200707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342. doi:10.1002/sce.10024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71(5), 1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstoe, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 645–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Developing argument skills education for thinking (pp. 149–173). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. doi:10.1080/13546780600625447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limon, M. S., Turner, M. M., & Zompetti, J. P. (2008). Informal arguing: The likelihood of providing arguments, rebuttals, refutations, and evidence in an argumentative interaction. Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 45(1), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796. doi:10.1080/095006900412275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences, Santa Monica, California.

  • Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 20(3), 194–204. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00086.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268. doi:10.1002/sce.20294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. doi:10.1002/tea.20201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills though instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. doi:10.1126/science.1183944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754. doi:10.1080/095006999290408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 562–571. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radinsky, J. (2008). Students’ sense-making with visual data in small-group argumentation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Ricci, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8(4), 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. (2003). Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 133–151. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00077-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simkins, D. W., & Steinkuehler, C. (2008). Critical ethical reasoning and role-play. Games and Culture, 3(3–4), 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spatariu, A., Hartley, K., Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Quinn, L. F. (2007). The influence of the discussion leader procedure on the quality of arguments in online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(2), 129–167. doi:10.1080/13546780701679764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2001). Architectures for computer supported collaborative learning. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001), Madison.

  • 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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Intellectual Property Office website for kids. (2013). Retrieved 10/9, 2013. http://www.tipo.gov.tw/kid/index.html.

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Council of the Republic of China (ROC) under Grant No. NSC-100-2511-S-003-045-MY3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, Sec. 1, Heping E. Rd., Da-an District, Taipei City, 10610, Taiwan, ROC

    Chun-Hsu Lin & Chiung-Hui Chiu

  2. Department of Engineering Science, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, Daxue Road, Tainan City, 701, Taiwan, ROC

    Chih-Chao Hsu & Tzone-I Wang

Authors
  1. Chun-Hsu Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chiung-Hui Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chih-Chao Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tzone-I Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiung-Hui Chiu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, CH., Chiu, CH., Hsu, CC. et al. The Influence of Playing a for or Against a Controversial Position on Elementary Students’ Ability to Construct Cogent Arguments. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 24, 409–418 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0193-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0193-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation