The effects of textual and graphical-textual argumentation software as cognitive tools on development of argumentation skills

In the present study, the effect of computer-supported textual and textual-graphical tools on argumentation structures is investigated.A non-equivalent control-group design of quasi-experimental is applied. Thetools of learning are defined as independent variables; the use of argumentationstructures is defined as dependent variables of the study.The study is conducted at Çukurova University, Computer and InstructionalTechnology Department in the spring semester of 2002-2003 academic years. 100participants are joined to the study in textual, textual-graphical and control groups. Theexperimental groups are taught about the argumentation structures. Belvedere 4.0 forgraphical and word processor for textual tool are used. Also argumentation coursewarefor teaching argumentation structures is developed. Argumentation papers are submittedby the students of textual group at the end of each topic. Graphical representations ofargumentation are submitted by students of graphical-textual group in addition toargumentation papers. No assignment is submitted by the students of control group. Togather data, the test of learning theories, the holistic rubric of argumentationcomponents and analytic rubric of argumentation components are developed. Toulmin?smodel of argumentation structures is utilized to develop teaching materials andmeasurement devices. Covariance technique is used to analyze data.Controlling pre-argumentation component level for post-argumentationcomponent level, statistically significant difference are found among groups in favor oftextual-graphical, textual and control group on data, warrant, warrant support,probability qualifier, strength qualifier, sum of components and holistic measurement.Statistically significant difference is found on claim in favor of experimental groups, ondata support and on rebuttal in favor of textual-graphical, on constraint qualifier in favorof textual, on counter rebuttal in favor of textual-graphical between control end textual-graphical groups.Controlling the achievement scores of learning theories for the postargumentation component, statistically significant difference are found among groups infavor of textual-graphical, textual and control group on warrant, strength qualifier, sumof components and holistic measurement. Statistically significant difference is foundamong groups in favor of experimental groups on claim, data, data support andprobability qualifier. Difference is found between textual-graphical and control groups,on counter rebuttal and constraint qualifier components in favor of textual-graphicalgroup; on rebuttal and warrant support in favor of textual-graphical group.Argumentation instruction is successful to have students? attention to theargumentation structures. Using graphical tool beside textual tool increases the positiveeffect of argumentation instruction. Structuring argumentation first in graphical form,then in textual form supports the use of argumentation components. Textual-graphicalgroup in this study uses many argumentation structures better than other groups. Theuse of graphical tools in learning with argumentation is recommended.Keywords: Argumentation, argumentation components, argument maps, Toulmin?smodel of argumentation structures, cognitive tool, Belvedere.