Improving pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills: A holistic online scaffolding design approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Argumentation skills framework by Kuhn (1991).

Argumentation skills	Skill explanation
Causal theory	Explaining the reasons behind the claim
Evidence	Providing evidence to prove the causal theory
Alternative theory	Proposing alternative theories to the initial causal theory
Counterargument	Envisioning a causal theory and evidence which contrast with the initial causal theory and evidence
Rebuttal	Rebutting the counterargument or alternative theory to strength own position

Figure 1. A holistic design approach to online scaffolding.

Figure 2. Visual representation of explanatory mixed methods design.

Figure 3. Visual representation of research process.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of argumentation skills scores in pretest and post-test by groups.

Argumentation skills	Group	Pretest		Post-test
		M	SD	M	SD
Causal Theory	Control Group	1.80	.63	1.60	.84
	Experimental Group	2.00	.000	2.00	.000
Evidence	Control Group	.00	.00	.00	.000
	Experimental Group	.00	.00	1.20	.91
Alternative Theory	Control Group	.00	.00	.00	.00
	Experimental Group	.00	.00	.40	.51
Counterargument	Control Group	.00	.00	.00	.00
	Experimental Group	.00	.00	.50	.70
Rebuttal	Control Group	.00	.00	.00	.00
	Experimental Group	.00	.00	.30	.67

Table 3. The results of mixed-design analysis of ANOVA.

	SS	Df	M	F	P	η2
Between Subjects
Intercept	48.02	1	48.02	157.73	<.001	48.02
Group	4.500	1	4.500	14.781	.001*	4.50
Within Subjects
Argumentation skills	93.73	2.39	39.14	210.36	<.001*	.92
Time	2.42	1.00	2.42	7.51	.013*	.29
Time x Group	3.38	1.00	3.38	10.49	.005*	.36
Argumentation skills x Time	2.53	2.15	1.17	4.89	.011*	.21
Argumentation skills x Time x Group	1.57	2.15	.72	3.03	.056*^,a	.14
*p < 0.05

Bonferroni post-doc test showed a significant difference in argumentation skills between experimental and control group (MD = 0.56, p= .002). Furthermore, we found that experimental and control groups significantly differed in argumentation skills including evidence (MD = 1.20, p= .001), alternative theory (MD = 0.40, p= .025) and counterargument (MD = 0.50, p= .038) however, no significant difference was observed in rebuttal (MD = 0.30, p= .177).

^a P value here is discussed as significant in the related literature (Dorey, 2010).

Table

		Level 0: The evidence cannot be distinguished from the causal theory.	Level 1: There is evidence related to causal theory. However, the evidence is based on personal experience, analogy, or covariation.	Level 2: There is evidence related to causal theory and the evidence is based on statistics, reports, learning theories or research results.
An example Evidence from post-test	It is important to use visuals to attract children’s attention, and it is necessary to reinforce them with examples so that they can understand the targeted topic and what they have learned will not be tacit.	✓
	Especially in the studies conducted by J. Dewey, who wrote many works on this subject at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was revealed that the problem-solving method contributed positively to the development of students.			✓

Table

Themes	Sub-themes	Codes
Metacognitive knowledge of argumentation skills	Declarative knowledge of argumentation skills	Listing each argumentation skills
		Explaining what each argumentation skill is and their purposes
	Procedural knowledge of argumentation skills	Describing how to obtain strong evidence
		Describing how to apply individual argumentation skills
	Epistemological knowledge of argumentation skills	Recognizing the importance of strength and relevancy of evidence
		Recognizing different functions of evidence
	Conditional knowledge of argumentation skills	Using argumentation skills to improve students’ critical thinking skills
		Using argumentation skills to achieve higher level learning outcomes.
		Using argumentation skills to support students’ meaningful learning
		Using argumentation skills to make informed decision making in their pedagogical choices
		Emphasizing the value of argumentation skills in daily life
Metacognitive regulation of argumentation skills	Planning	Planning what type of evidence will be needed and where to access it
	Monitoring	Feedback triggered the monitoring
		Monitoring came along as students’ adept the supports
	Evaluation	Difficulty in developing argumentation skills including counterargument, alternative theory, and rebuttal
		Strategic use of supports
		Dependency on the supports

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar

Dorey, F. (2010). In brief: The P value: What is it and what does it tell you? Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, 468(8), 2297–2298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1402-9

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar