Adventures in Argument: Training in Argumentation Influences Student Resource Use in Collaborative Meaning Making

Abstract

Argumentation is the primary pedagogical strategy employed in the online undergraduate course Human Abilities and Learning Online (HAL Online). We conducted a controlled in vivo experiment in this course to examine the effects, on collaborative meaning making, of providing direct training in argumentation early in the course. The performance of a group receiving the treatment, Trained Argumentation with Modest Scaffolding (TAMS), was compared with an ecological control group that did not receive argument training: Emergent Argumentation with Modest Scaffolding (EAMS). We hypothesized that argument training would influence how students attended to, used, and shared instructional resources as evidence to support explanations in collaborative meaning making. Results indicated that TAMS exerted strong influence on how deeply and thoroughly students processed, were accountable to, and integrated instructional resources.