Studying the effectiveness of an online argumentation model for improving undergraduate students' argumentation ability.

This research develops a web‐based model, entitled the "intuitive claim, peer‐assessment, discussion, and elaborate claim argumentation training" (IPadE) model, and embeds with a Web‐based Interactive Argumentation System to enhance undergraduate students' socioscientific argumentation abilities. This research adopts a quasi‐experimental research design; the sample comprised 131 undergraduate students from two classes (69 in the experimental group and 62 in the control group). The socioscientific issue discussed were related to global health. This study collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data, including the pretest and posttest of students' knowledge test scores and argumentation abilities questionnaire. The results generally confirmed the effectiveness of the IPadE model. First, in a comparison of the content knowledge and argumentation skills, the experimental group have statistically significantly improved than the control group. Second, regarding the number of reasoning modes proposed, the experimental group could propose multiple reasoning modes and reasoning levels on rebuttals increased after training. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: In the traditional classroom setting, it is difficult to obtain a fair expression of opinions because dominant students lead the debate. With internet and communication technology (ICT) rapid development, that has been emerging as a useful supplement to traditional methods. Web‐based interactive learning environments have recently become a popular and effective tool in the education field worldwide.Argumentation skills are the critical reasoning abilities that a modern citizen should possess. Regrettably, the researchers have consistently demonstrated that adolescents' and young adults' insufficient competencies regarding argumentation, constructing weaknesses of two‐sided arguments, and difficulty justifying evidence in support of their claims (Brem & Rips, 2000; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Kuhn, 1991, 2003; Naylor, Keogh, & Downing, 2007; Voss & Means, 1991). Students' inadequate knowledge of science and judgment capacity can cripple their competency to make satisfactory decisions and be responsible citizens in society (Fowler, Zeidler, & Sadler, 2009).The integration of argumentation activities into science‐related curriculum is currently upheld as a core factor for a successful science program. In addition, HIV/AIDS is a prominent global health problem in Taiwan. Research based on global health‐related content knowledge and argumentation is rarely.Most of the literature has focused on the learning of elementary and middle school students (Fowler et al., 2009; Jimènez‐Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Keselman, Kaufman, Kramer, & Patel, 2007; Lin & Mintzes, 2010; Wu & Tsai, 2007; Zohar & Nemet, 2002) and has rarely investigated pre‐service and in‐service teachers and undergraduate students. (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004; Chang & Chiu, 2008). What this paper adds: Research based on global health‐related content knowledge and argumentation is rarely. We develop the IPadE argumentation model with Web‐based Interactive Argumentation System to enhance argumentation abilities of undergraduate students toward globe health problem.We develop three research instruments, including HIV/AIDS knowledge test (HKT), Open‐ended SSI argumentation ability questionnaire (SAAQ), and Argumentation ability checklist (AAC).We added the metacognitive supports interface designs "context viewer" function of WIAS; on the left is the initial argumentation context of the user, in the middle is the Lakatos' argumentation model, and on the right is the peer assessment score. Students can view their own initial argumentation context and reflect upon it after interacting with their peers and group discussion to obtain a sounder argumentation in the argumentation stage (Figure 5). Implications for practice: Development of HIV/AIDS knowledge: The results confirm that experimental group students in the semester program using the IPadE model with WIAS performed better and significantly improved HIV/AIDS knowledge.Development of argumentation skills: The results confirm that undergraduate students using the IPadE model with WIAS performed significantly better than those in the control group.Changes in students' use of arguments modes: The majority of the reasons proposed by participants were science‐and‐technology‐oriented arguments, followed by law‐oriented and social‐oriented arguments in the PH. Additionally, the students' use of the major argument modes were proposed as law‐oriented in the NH and rebuttal; however, the number of students in the experimental group that could propose multiple argument modes in the PH, NH, and rebuttal increased after training.Design of online discussion boards: The students used the discussions to assess peer learning by looking at peers' viewpoints and ideas. Comparison of face‐to‐face classroom, the WIAS can provided students with opportunities at anytime and anywhere through asynchronous discussions board to record their thoughts then make peer learning. This study suggest that a well‐designed web‐based argumentation system is a critical part of the higher education experience when the goal is to improve students' argumentation ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]