Supporting Argumentation through group work Strategies during Collaborative Learning
Megala Mani1*, Madhumathi Pasupathi2
1Research Scholar, Department of English, School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT), Vellore- 632014, Tamil Nadu, India.
2Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Science, National Institute of Technology, Warangal - 506004, Telangana, INDIA
*Corresponding Author Email: madhumathi.p@nitw.ac.in
ABSTRACT:
The aim of current study is to highlight the importance of argumentation in ESL classroom. The knowledge about argumentation is often neglected in classrooms due to time constraint and stipulated curriculum which lacks practical applications. Thereby the present study stresses on emergence of using group work strategies in assisting the learners to develop content oriented arguments. By tracing the review, it is found that formation of groups and engaging learners in activity is one of the possible solutions to overcome the barriers confronted by them in argument. Hence, the study attempted to analyze the models proposed by the proponents of the field and finalized Weinberger and Fischer’s process dimension model to compare group work strategies based on their characteristics. It is suggested to concentrate on other models for further study.
KEYWORDS: Argumentative knowledge construction, Group work strategies, ESL classrooms, Dimensions of AKC.
INTRODUCTION:
The role of argument is inevitable in the life of human beings. It plays a significant part in reasoning, scientific inquiry. Since, it fosters learning in various domains; Argumentative knowledge construction (AKC) came to light in educational field. Andriessen et. al.,[1] defined Argumentative knowledge construction as learners construct domain-specific as well as domain-general knowledge through collaborative argumentation. In addition, it improves understanding of learners in classroom by triggering them in many ways. For example, it helps the learners to stay firm in their stance and thereby justify themselves with proper evident. In this way learners frame their objection, and counter objection too, and even try to understand the opinion of other learners.
AKC practice in classroom is remarkable because it train learners to understand the structure of arguments used for reasoning work (i.e. learner search for reasons, examine the available data, and to test alternative hypotheses) which allows them to discover that knowledge is more about trying to construct and resolve problems in specific theoretical frames rather than discovering new things. On other hand, AKC is considered as a source to deal with complex decisions where learners engaged both in reasoning and in search of information.
Hence learners are required to coordinate their actions like thinking, learning, expressing themselves. Because it is believed that learning is not only about acquisition of information rather it involves the emergence of understandings and reformation of previous knowledge. Generally, argumentation requires both intellectual and social skills which are emotionally demanded. Initiating argumentative activities in educational settings not yet flourished. It needs attention at different levels. Thus argumentation skills are expected to be developed from early years of education. Hence, learners confront others’ perspective in interpersonal level. In academic context argumentative activities are considered as the time consuming process at the point of increased curriculum. Consequently, these argumentative activities obliged social skills not only from learners but also from teachers and in their assessment practices. Researchers in the field of argumentation examine the effect of employing arguments in the classroom. Most of the researchers were concentrating on communication and context perspective and stressed that oral fluency is one of the important key factors in improving reading skills of the learners. Further they studied the place of individual in knowledge development with social responsibility. It is evident that argumentation grabs the interest of researchers and practitioners in education on par with the social and cognitive processes in learning. However, teaching arguments to the learners, method of employing group work strategies in learning arguments. Therefore the present study concentrated on learning processes of argumentation and effectiveness of group work activities in enhancing argumentative knowledge construction and the process of evaluating and analyzing arguments among group learners.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Noroozi et. al [2] studied the importance of argumentative knowledge construction in computer supported collaborative learning scenario. He justified that AKC is succeeded by the application of transactive discussion script. The findings revealed that scripts help learners to paraphrase, criticize, and raise questions. In addition it improves the memory of the learners and strengthens single arguments by using proofs to support the claim and considered the multi perspective of qualifying the claim. On the whole transactive script prompted learner’s cognitive process. Similarly Sara Streng et,al[3] in their study discusses importance of scripts through the table top application in face to face setting to construct knowledge through argumentation perspective. Especially use of interface plays significant role in table top application. The researchers used argue table and argue wall for his study. In both applications learners confront the scripts of their peers in their display. After observing the opinion of others they try to substantiate their view by holding the format of scripts that id pre available in their desktop. They can initiate their discussion through interactive wall facility in table top applications. However he stressed the importance of scripts rather than using technologies in learning.
Nowadays collaborative group work is considered as the effective classroom strategy in equalizing the learning method and goal of learning[4]. Review on collaborative group work by Gillies & Haynes[5] revealed that group work strategies facilitated student’s acquisition of theoretical concepts, unknown information, and learners’ reasoning ability as well. Springer, Stanne, & Donovan [6] stated that group work seems to be a potential academic strategy for learning difficult concepts requires high cognitive level. Storch[7] conducted a study to investigate the merits of pair work with ESL tertiary class students. The findings revealed that learners in pair work develop their knowledge through peer interaction. However, there is no significant difference between the performance level of learners who worked in pair and individual. Moreover the study illustrated that when students work in group it becomes an opportunity for them to sustain the language usage for more time than the students in individual learning setup. It is apparent that language learning is benefited out of group work.
Shlomo sharan[8] in his study compared the five cooperative small group learning in classroom which includes Aronson’s jigsaw classroom, DeVries’ team games tournaments, Slavin’s student teams and academic divisions, Johnson’s cooperative learning approach and Sharan’s small group teaching method. Findings revealed that learners who practice in peer tutoring increased their low-level cognitive learning. In addition it is stated that learning in group eliminates unequal status within the teams by promoting cooperation by elimination competition. Metaxas and Potari[9] conducted a study to analyze argumentation in pedagogical perspective of by using Toulmin’s model and Walton’s taxonomy. By using the models researcher investigated the structure and quality of teacher’s argumentation. In addition role of teachers and managements are also expected to take part in learners education by inculcating good leadership quality through community based learning [10]. Thus, this study it is claimed that Toulmin’s model of argumentation is considered as a standardized tool to analyze the argumentative pattern of teacher’s argument in classroom. The findings of the review revealed that performance of learners increased due to the sequence of arguments in classroom when it comes to self learning. Therefore the present paper put forth an idea that employing group work strategies towards argumentative knowledge construction perspective would be an effective idea to encourage the students to involve in arguments.
MODELS OF ARGUMENTATION KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION:
There are many notable researcher framed AKC models in different perspective is available to analyze the arguments. It includes Fischer and Weinberger’s Process dimension model, Toulmin’s model of the grammar of arguments, Scriven’s model of seven steps, and Walton’s dialectical method of evaluating arguments.
Process dimension model:
Fischer and Weinberger proposed a model of four processes namely,
· Participation dimension
· Epistemic dimension
· Argument dimension
· Dimension of social modes of co-construction
The participation dimensions of learners are assessed based on the quantity and heterogeneity of participation. In contrast to quantity of participation, content level contribution of learners to the argumentation session is measured in epistemic dimension. It is a three layered process which involves finding problems in the construction of problem space, appropriate theories related to problem in construction of conceptual space and applying theories to the problems in the construction of relations between conceptual and problem space. In argument dimension, Weinberger and Fischer implemented the model of Toulmin’s claim, ground with warrant and qualifier in his construction of single argument section. In addition they describe the steps involved in sequences of argumentation. It includes the ability to self explain their view point, giving counter arguments, and to construct reply for the questions rose in counterpart [11]. In dimension of social modes of co-construction, learners are conveying their ideas in group and try to stand affirm with their idea by projecting proper evidence. Meanwhile they recognize the ideas projected by the group members to maintain mutuality.
Toulmin’s model of argumentation:
Toulmin proposed a model which is considered as a grammar of argumentation with six elements. They are claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. To analyze a single argument, claim is the basic idea a learner proposed in a group as an outcome of their argument. Often such claims are accepted only by the data which can be of anything from prior knowledge, literature or some other valid information. Warrant function as a bridge between data and claim as a justifier. Backing up warrant strengthens the validity of the warrant through additional data in an argument. Qualifier is a way which projects the strength of warrants in the argument. Rebuttal concerns more about the counter arguments by indicating the limitations of the warrant in the argument. Six part of Toulmin’s model was simplified into three parts, as it consists claim, grounds, which comprised data, warrant, backing and qualifications in the following application oriented studies[12].
The Scrieven model of argumentation:
Scrieven’s model of argumentation consists of seven steps which includes Clarifying meaning, identifying conclusion, portray structure, formulate unstated assumption, criticize inference and premises, consider other relevant argumentation, overall evaluation. In the initial stage the learner (arguer) has to clarify the meaning of unknown terms, inferences for better perception of the topic, in the second stage they have to identify the claim of the opponent which is stated clearly through the lexical clues. After that they have to portray the structure of given claim by analyzing the relation existing between the claim and truth factor of the sentence. In some cases the learner has the responsibility to formulate the hidden premises in their argument for better understanding. Step five initiates the argument with criticism, which has to be strong to stand firm in his opinion. The arguer should consider the logical perspective instead of technical claims. In turn he is also expected to give space to the opponent to get better perspective out of their argument. Finally they have to recollect their criticism to give mutual conclusion over the topic.
AKC AND GROUP WORK STRATEGIES:
Based on the review on various models of argumentative knowledge construction Weinberger’s framework was selected for analysis. In addition group work strategies namely think pair share, pass the paper, snowballing, and muddiest point and doodle it were selected for the comparison. In recent days the use of group work strategy as teaching and learning methodology is widely benefited by the learners. The diversified personalities of the learners in the group broaden the understanding of group members. Moreover when students involve in an activity like game based learning [13], group learning or task based learning learners are highly enthusiastic. Apart from content knowledge it promotes their higher order thinking skills and language at the condition of learning with suitable tasks in classroom [14]. Especially it is utilized by the learners who are showing reluctant behaviors in the classroom. Therefore personally learners upgrade themselves in social dimension. Learners came to know their rights in the society through education [15]. During the learning sessions in groups, learners work collaboratively to maximize their own learning and tend to be supportive for other development. Group work gives the responsibility to take charge of one’ own learning. Therefore, groups are formed with utmost care and structured formally. Group members are encouraged to play their role to contribute themselves in producing learning outcome. Similarly, in argumentative frame work of Weinberger and Fischer, each dimension of AKC modeled based on some characteristics. It is analyzed that distinctiveness of AKC is highly matched with the attribute of group work strategies. Further, the reason for selecting group work strategies based on the characteristics is discussed in detail (see Table 1).
Table 1 comparison of process dimension of AKC and group work strategies
S.NO |
Weinberger and Fischer’s different Dimensions of Argumentative knowledge construction |
Group work strategies used in the study |
Reason for categorizing strategies based on dimensions |
1. |
Participation Dimension (i) Quantity of Participation (ii)Heterogeneity in participation |
Think pair share i. Individually think about the topic ii. Pair with group members iii. Discuss in detail about opinion and consider others in turn |
The participation levels of students are mutual and everyone obtained the chance of contributing and criticizing others view. Hence it builds group knowledge about the given topic. |
2. |
Epistemic Dimension (i) Construction of problem space (ii) Construction of conceptual space (iii) Relation of conceptual and problem space |
Muddiest point i. Individually reads the passage in detail ii. Share the vague ideas in group iii. Try to solve the problem through application of theories iv. Find a common solution through discussion |
Students grasped the meaning of the text to some extent and they seek their peers’ help during confusion and solve the problem by discussing in group. Therefore students are able to define their problem and find relation with their peers’ statement |
3. |
Argument Dimension (i) Construction of argument (ii) Sequence of argument |
Snowballing i. Students have to write a question after reading the passage ii. Pass it on to other members of the group iii. Similarly, everyone has to do the same and throw back the question sheet with answers from their view iv. Finally they have to sequence it in order |
Collective question on a topic gives curiosity to the learners to know more about the unknown facts. After finding answer to the questions students involve in sequencing statements in order. |
4. |
Dimension of Social Modes of co- construction (i) Externalization (ii) Elicitation (iii) Quick consensus building (iv) Integration oriented consensus (v) Conflict-oriented consensus |
Pass the Paper i. Students have to put forth their idea. ii. Eventually they come to Know what others are thinking and how to approach a common topic in different perspective iii. Repeated action of sharing opinions give collective idea about the text Doodle It i. Similarly, students have to discuss about the topic and come up with visual representation |
In both strategies(Pass the Paper and Doodle It ), students have space for individual opinion, and they also know where to give space to their learning partner and how to justify their point of view in group without others objection |
CONCLUSION:
However it is learner’s responsibility to engage in group work, teachers have the major role to play in group learning. They have to monitor the class during practice sessions and required to give proper inputs for them to carry out the group work in progressive way. In between the group work teacher has to interfere the learning and need to learn about the mutuality among the members. The idea behind the group work is to prepare the learners for self learning in future. The inputs gained from the group learning assist them for further progress in future. Therefore teachers have to be more responsible than the learners for the success of their attempt.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES:
1. Andriessen J, Baker M and Suthers D. Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. Arguing to learn. 2003: 1-25.
2. Mohapatra, Malavika, and Swayamprabha Satpathy. "Incorporating Oral Reading Fluency into the Foreign Language Literacy Framework." Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 8.3 (2017): 316-322.
3. Noroozi O et al., Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61; 2013, 59-76.
4. Streng S et al., Supporting argumentative knowledge construction in face-to-face settings: From ArgueTable to Argue Wall. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Available from https://ww w.researchgate.net/publication/2240 25167_Supporting_argumen t a t I knowledge_construction_in_fact-to-to_face_settings_from_ArgueTable_to_ArgueWall.
5. Rohrbeck CA et al., Peer- assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology. 95(2); 2003: 240.
6. Gillies RM and Haynes M. Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. Instructional Science. 39(3); 2010: 349–366.
7. Springer L, Stanne M E and Donovan SS. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 69(1); 1999: 21–51.
8. Storch N. Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research. 11(2); 2007: 143-159.
9. Sharan S. Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of educational research, 50(2); 1980: 241-271.
10. Metaxas N, Potari D and Zachariades T. Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(3); 2016: 383-397.
11. Gyenfie, Karen D. “The ethos of excellence in an effective school: A study of an exemplary urban school.” Illinois State University, 2009.
12. Weinberger A and Fischer F. A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & education. 46(1); 2006: 71-95.
13. Weinberger A et al., Argumentative knowledge construction in online learning environments in and across different cultures: A collaboration script perspective. Research in Comparative and International Education. 2(1); 2007: 68-79.
14. Musheer, Zainab, and Mohd Shakir. "Role of Education in the Protection and Promotion of Human rights." Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 8.3 (2017): 379-384.
15. Ghimire, Sasmita. "A Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Game-Based Learning on Knowledge Regarding the Healthy Dietary Pattern among the School Children in Selected Government Schools, Bengaluru." Asian Journal of Nursing Education and Research 6.1 (2016): 133.
16. Ramakrishnan, P., S. P. Dhanavel, and Stars Jasmine. "Developing Communicative Competence of Tertiary Level Engineering Students through De Bono’s Lateral Thinking Tool Design." Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences7.4 (2016): 305-312.
Received on 07.03.2018 Modified on 12.04.2018
Accepted on 20.04.2018 ©A&V Publications All right reserved
Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(2): 351-355.
DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00063.3