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

References

• Andriessen, J. E. B. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Limited learning on college campuses. Society, 48(3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-011-9417-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydeniz, M., & Gürçay, D. (2013). Assessing quality of pre-service physics teachers’ written arguments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.834883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition (pp. 505–518). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_39
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R. (2016). Instructional scaffolding in STEM education: Strategies and efficacy evidence. In Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education: Strategies and Efficacy Evidence. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0
   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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C., & Heo, H. (2020). A meta-analysis of scaffolding effects in online learning in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 60–80.
   Web of Science ®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
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Mila, M., Felton, M., Miralda-Banda, A., & Castells, N. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and predispositions to teach argumentation in their disciplines. Journal of Education for Teaching, 49(4), 648–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2150536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassner, A. (2017). Evaluating arguments in instruction: Theoretical and practical directions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (2000). Technology and student-centered learning in higher education: Issues and practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032712
   Google Scholar
• Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42(6), 929–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11251-014-9320-Y/FIGURES/2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hefter, M. H., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., Fries, S., & Berthold, K. (2018). Training interventions to foster skill and will of argumentative thinking. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1363689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iordanou, K. (2022). Supporting strategic and meta-strategic development of argument skill: The role of reflection. Metacognition and Learning, 17(2), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11409-021-09289-1/FIGURES/3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3–4), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jin, Q., & Kim, M. (2021). Supporting elementary students’ scientific argumentation with argument-focused metacognitive scaffolds (AMS). International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 1984–2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1947542
   Web of Science ®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(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jose, K. (2016). Digital literacy matters: Increasing workforce productivity through Blended English Language Programs. Higher Learning Research Communications, 6(4), 354. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v6i4.354
   Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R. (2022). Nature of science and argumentation instruction in socioscientific and scientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 647–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Axelrod, D. (2018). Scaffolding for optimal challenge in K–12 problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, N. J., Vicentini, C. R., & Belland, B. R. (2022). Influence of scaffolding on information literacy and argumentation skills in virtual field trips and problem-based learning for scientific problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10763-020-10145-Y/TABLES/4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). Synergies: Effects of source representation and goal instructions on evidence quality, reasoning, and conceptual integration during argumentation-driven inquiry. Instructional Science, 44(5), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9381-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.830618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harward University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lefstein, A., Vedder-Weiss, D., Tabak, I., & Segal, A. (2018). Learner agency in scaffolding: The case of coaching teacher leadership. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, H., Hong, Z.R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y.-R., Fan, B., & Xie, K. (2020). The influence of a web-based learning environment on low achievers’ science argumentation. Computers & Education, 151, 103860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, J., Schmidt, M., Lee, M., & Huang, R. (2022). Usability research in educational technology: A state-of-the-art systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(6), 1951–1992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10152-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts: Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lytzerinou, E., & Iordanou, K. (2020). Teachers’ ability to construct arguments, but not their perceived self-efficacy of teaching, predicts their ability to evaluate arguments. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1722864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: A quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miralda-Banda, A., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. (2019). Concept of evidence and the quality of evidence-based reasoning in elementary students. Topoi, 40(2), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09685-y
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., & McAlister, S. (2017). Software tools for scaffolding argumentation competence development. In Technical and vocational education and training (Vol. 23, pp. 819–839). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_38
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O. (2020). European journal of open education and E-learning studies argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): The role of instructional supports. European Journal of Open Education and E-Learning Studies, 5(2), 3279. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v5i2.3279
   Google Scholar
• Oh, E. G., & Kim, H. S. (2016). Understanding cognitive engagement in online discussion: Use of a scaffolded, audio-based argumentation activity understanding cognitive engagement in online discussion. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 28. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özçinar, H. (2015). Scaffolding computer-mediated discussion to enhance moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers. Journal of Moral Education, 44(2), 232–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1043875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öztürk, A. (2017). An investigation of prospective science teachers’ socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition: A causal-comparative study. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 7(4), 547–582. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.020
   Google Scholar
• Plano Clark, V. L., Schumacher, K., West, C., Edrington, J., Dunn, L. B., Harzstark, A., Melisko, M., Rabow, M. W., Swift, P. S., & Miaskowski, C. (2013). Practices for embedding an interpretive qualitative approach within a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812474372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puntambekar, S. (2021). Distributed Scaffolding: Scaffolding students in classroom environments. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09636-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C., Vrikki, M., & Evagorou, M. (2021). Preparing culturally literate citizens through dialogue and argumentation: Rethinking citizenship education. The Curriculum Journal, 32(3), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.95
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, K. A., Triant, J. H., & Reeves, T. D. (2019). Patterns in how pre-service elementary teachers formulate evidence-based claims about student cognition. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1548170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D. (2017). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10972-006-9025-4
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (2009). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking. Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219409367580
   Google Scholar
• Schnaubert, L., & Vogel, F. (2022). Integrating collaboration scripts, group awareness, and self-regulation in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11412-022-09367-9/FIGURES/1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101–123). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. (pp. 91–126). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600996972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Learner perceptions of scaffolding in supporting critical thinking. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02960225
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su, G., & Long, T. (2021). Is the text-based cognitive tool more effective than the concept map on improving the pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabak, I. (2009). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3
   Google Scholar
• Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teng, F. (2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uçar, B., & Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2020). The effect of argument mapping supported with peer feedback on pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 37(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1815107
   Google Scholar
• Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills. In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationenfür Forschung und Praxis (pp. 75–97). Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
   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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weng, W. Y., Lin, Y. R., & She, H. C. (2017). Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1310409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wess, R., Priemer, B., & Parchmann, I. (2023). Professional development programs to improve science teachers’ skills in the facilitation of argumentation in science classroom – a systematic review. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00076-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xie, Q., & So, W. W. M. (2012). Understanding and practice of argumentation: A pilot study with Mainland Chinese pre-service teachers in secondary science classrooms. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, G., Zhao, R., Li, X., Duan, Y., & Long, T. (2021). Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(1), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, X.-L., Huang, J. U. N., Xia, X.-H., Hwang, G.-J., Tu, Y.-F., Huang, Y.-P., & Wang, F. (2023). Effects of online whiteboard-based collaborative argumentation scaffolds on group-level cognitive regulations, written argument skills and regulation patterns. Computers & Education, 207, 104920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104920
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00063-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar