They use of concept mapping software for argument building in the language classroom: How does it affect students argume

1. They use of concept mapping software for argument building in the language classroom: How does it affect students' argumentative essay writing? Chrystalla Lymbouridou ICT Advisor , Cyprus

2. The president of Zambia rejected the help from the world food organization because it mainly includes GM corn from the USA. “My country is under starvation. However, I can not give my people poison…” What would you do if you were in his place?

3. Socioscientific controversial issues Should we eat GMF? Is the use of mobile phones harmful? Should embryonic Stem Cell Research and Transplants be Permitted? Controversial issues: May have a basis in science The science cannot settle this subjects alone Several groups of the society hold several views about the solution of such problems based on different value systems and interests.

4. Why teach argumentation in Language classrooms? “We must recognise that teaching about citizenship necessarily involves discussing controversial issues. After all, open and informed debate is vital for a healthy democracy. This is not confined to citizenship however: controversial issues arise in other areas like History, Geography, Science, English, Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) or Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (SMSC)”. Crick Report,p.10

5. Why is it important? In training the students to deal with expert statements and the evaluation of facts and knowledge claims, we aim at empowering the students as citizens. Through such debates the students might learn to appreciate consensual science as more authoritative than disputed knowledge. From a societal point of view it is important that decision-making is thoughtful (Aikenhead 1985). This means that decisions should be both knowledge-based and value-based. For a decision to be denoted as thoughtful the decision-making process should also include listening to the views of antagonists. Kostloe, 2000,p.651

6. Questions to ask about GMF By what means do they help the agriculture and the production of more foods in order to feed the planet?-information Are they dangerous for the human health?- information , science in the making How can we know about it? What if something will be discovered some years later? What is the risk? – risk assessment Are they harmful to the environment? If we find out that they do not affect our health but do affect biodiversity what is our priorities? – sustainable development –ethics and values Can a president decide about his people when it comes about their own lives? – ethics and values We they give GMF that are rejected from Europe as a help to such countries? – value systems – interests ….

7. Students’ ability to create arguments Prior beliefs seriously influence the way that students response to data. When presented with contradictory evidence students usually distort the evidence to adjust to their prior beliefs without being aware of doing so. (Sodian et al , 1991, p.759, Shepardson 1999, p.91, Bell 1995, p.13). Apart from distorting the evidence, students are found to ignore data that they ought to consider when evaluating claims or assimilate such data in ways that do not damage their current theories(Sandoval 2001, p.1, Chinn and Brewer, 1998, Klahr et al, 1990; Kuhn et al., 1998). Students usually use only positive positions in order to support a claim and very rare use counterarguments or present different points of view on the same issue. (Driver et al., 2000, p.304)

8. Argumentative writing Writing an argumentative text is a difficult task. Previous studies which investigated the argumentative skills of secondary schools students ascribe the difficulties to lack of specific education, which would help students to disentangle the complexity of argumentation (van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Hankemans, 1996). Formal education does not offer the student the opportunities to develop experience in defending a position (Oostdam and Emmelot, 1991; Oostdam, de Glopper, Eiting, 1994). Research findings indicate that although students can invent arguments or even identify them among resources, they are not as good in “synthesising” them into a coherent text (Oostdam, de Glopper, Eiting, 1994). It is often seen that students develop arguments separately and omit to relate each argument to a high-level structure or one standpoint (Keith, Weiner & Lesgold, 1991). Problems with refutation have also been reported. In most cases, students take up an argument against the formulated standpoint and then they reject it without justification. As cited in Chryssafidou, 2001

9. Research Teaching intervention which would promote collaborative exchange and discrimination of ideas among students give available and contradictory evidence about a subject , and “made things ‘visible’ – allow graphical representation of arguments (Bell, 1997) would help students improve the structure of their argumentative essays. Argumentation in science classrooms seems to be a difficult task. However, several studies give encouraging results about students that were engaged in argumentation activities in a well organized and scaffoled environment (Driver et al., 2000, Duschl et al., 1999,Bell, 1997, Sandoval, 2001). The study reported here used an argument-mapping tool available from The Reason Group, called Reason!Able to improve elementary school students’ ability to construct scientific arguments. The main goal of this work was to analyze students’ arguments in aspects of structure and validity of claims, before and after instruction. Our hypotheses were that: Students’ knowledge about a subject would affect their ability to construct scientific arguments Teaching intervention which would promote collaborative exchange and discrimination of ideas among students give available and contradictory evidence about a subject , and “made things ‘visible’ – allow graphical representation of arguments (Bell, 1997) would help students improve the structure of their scientific arguments.Argumentation in science classrooms seems to be a difficult task. However, several studies give encouraging results about students that were engaged in argumentation activities in a well organized and scaffoled environment (Driver et al., 2000, Duschl et al., 1999,Bell, 1997, Sandoval, 2001). The study reported here used an argument-mapping tool available from The Reason Group, called Reason!Able to improve elementary school students’ ability to construct scientific arguments. The main goal of this work was to analyze students’ arguments in aspects of structure and validity of claims, before and after instruction. Our hypotheses were that: Students’ knowledge about a subject would affect their ability to construct scientific arguments Teaching intervention which would promote collaborative exchange and discrimination of ideas among students give available and contradictory evidence about a subject , and “made things ‘visible’ – allow graphical representation of arguments (Bell, 1997) would help students improve the structure of their scientific arguments.

10. Methodology Sample: 22 5th graders of primary school (age 10-11) Subject: Genetically modified food Teaching intervention Setting the problem Explore the information Role play debate 1st drafting – What would you do if you where the president of Zambia? Scaffolding argument building with the help of Reason!Able 2nd drafting- argumentative essay

11. Reason!Able Reason!Able is a software package for PCs . It enhances the building of simple diagrams of complex reasoning, so that the building blocks of an argument can be identified very easily. (http://www.goreason.com/). The tool was selected as appropriate for our teaching interventions because it enables students both build and evaluate arguments. Reasonable! environment, prompts for arguments and counterarguments in order to reach a final claim, thus helping students present thesis other than their own as well, and also provides opportunity for creating multireasoned as well as multileveled arguments.

12. Analyzing data Convert text to diagrams “I would not accept genetically modified food for my country because even if there is evidence that they can help preventing cancer, they may cause many other heath problems. In addition, we do not know if they are safe for our health. Research says that GMF can cause AIDS and can affect woman’s fertility. Even if they say that the crops can be easier planted and we have more crops with this method, there is a great environmental danger: When you plan a GM plant the other plants that are near to it may become genetically modified also. As a result, the crops will be contaminated, people will not have food to eat and they will be destroyed too…(student 20)

14. Setting criteria for arguments evaluation The number of arguments that they use to support their final claim (both reasons and objections) The existence of counterarguments (objections) The number of levels that their argument had. ExampleExample

15. Results Number of arguments- no new information presented Students’ knowledge about a subject would affect their ability to construct scientific arguments First hypothesis was tested by comparing Response 1 and Response 2. (First Response about red fox and second response after reading a lot about the subject). The results indicate that students number of claims have an increment of 81%, almost double number of claims. This looks very natural, as children cannot present sufficient claims about a subject, unless they have a knowledge background as well. Gaining knowledge about a subject also affects the nature of their claims (Hogan and Maglienti, 2001), as more groups provide now counterarguments, and the complexity of their arguments (average before 50%, after 83,3%). The results implicate that students should be provided with sufficient knowledge for the subject in order to be able to engage in a good scientific discourse and construct good scientific arguments. Both data type and availability and conceptual understanding have been proved as factors affecting students’ ability for argumentation (Sanbonmatsu et al., 1997; Brem & Rips, 2000).Students’ knowledge about a subject would affect their ability to construct scientific arguments First hypothesis was tested by comparing Response 1 and Response 2. (First Response about red fox and second response after reading a lot about the subject). The results indicate that students number of claims have an increment of 81%, almost double number of claims. This looks very natural, as children cannot present sufficient claims about a subject, unless they have a knowledge background as well. Gaining knowledge about a subject also affects the nature of their claims (Hogan and Maglienti, 2001), as more groups provide now counterarguments, and the complexity of their arguments (average before 50%, after 83,3%). The results implicate that students should be provided with sufficient knowledge for the subject in order to be able to engage in a good scientific discourse and construct good scientific arguments. Both data type and availability and conceptual understanding have been proved as factors affecting students’ ability for argumentation (Sanbonmatsu et al., 1997; Brem & Rips, 2000).

16. Existence of counterarguments

17. Existence of counterarguments