The effect of argumentation scaffolds in simulation on academic succcess and argumentation structure use in the 8th grade genetic unit

This study investigates the effect of argumentation scaffolds on the level of academic success and argumentation structure use in the genetic unit of 8th grade Science and Technology course. It was designed as pretest-posttest control group experimental design.The study was conducted in the first semester of 2008-2009 education years with 115 8th grade students of Gazikent İMKB Elementary School located in Şehitkâmil, Gaziantep-Turkey. After equal four groups based on Turkish version of IOWA Silent Reading Tests and gender was identified, groups were assigned randomly to three experimental and one control group. They were also equal in terms of basic computer skills. In experimental groups students were assigned to fourteen study-teams, one with three students and others with 2 students. The experimental groups studied different simulation versions of the same content analysis of the genetic unit. The experimental group-1 (E1) studied in directly-indirectly argumentation scaffolded simulation; the experimental group-2 (E2) studied in only indirectly argumentation scaffolded simulation; experimental group-3 studied in basic simulation environment and a control group were taught in traditional classroom setting. The study was completed in seven weeks. Duration of each weekly session was 3 hours.Students in E1 is first instructed directly about argumentation structures based on Toulmin Argumentation Model in class for two hours, then began their study in argumentation scaffolded simulation environment. E1 students is responsible with reasoning to answer scaffolding questions and reflect their ideas as scientific explanation in written form. These students were also responsible to analyze each text presented after each sub-sections using Toulmin Argumentation Model. E2 students were not directly instructed on Toulmin Argumentation Model, they only studied the genetic unit in argumentation scaffolded simulation environment in which students has to reason and reflect their explanation by writing scientific explanations. E3 students studied non-scaffolded simulation environment in which no reflection question was designed for students. Students in E3 was only responsible to study genetic simulation. Students in control group (C) are taught in traditional face to face classroom environment. Instructional goals as well as content analysis were same across all groups.Data were collected by academic success test for the 8th grade genetic unit, holistic argumentation rubric and analytic argumentation rubric. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance analysis (ANOVA) in SPSS 11.5 version.Controlling academic success pre-test scores for post-test scores of mean of E1 and E2 were found to be equal; however, statistically significant difference are found in favor of E1, E2 compare to the means of E3, control groups. There were also meaningful difference between E3 and control groups? mean in favor of E3. The lowest mean belonged to the control group.Controlling pre-claim and pre-analytic total scores for post-claim and post-analytic total scores, the mean of the scores of E1 and E2 groups were equal to each other. Statistically meaningful difference was found among E1, E2 groups and E3 and control. There was also meaningful difference between E3 and control group in favor of E3. The highest mean belonged to the E1 and E3. The lowest mean belonged to the control group.Controlling pre-data component scores for the post-data component scores, there were statistically meaningful difference between E1 and other groups in favor of E1, between E2 and control in favor of E2. The mean difference between E2 and E3, between E3 and control did not rise to the significant level.Controlling pre-argumentation level for the post argumentation level of warrant (reasoning), warrant support, consistency and holistic argumentation scores, means were equal between E1 and E2; equal between E3 and control groups? scores. The meaningful statistical differences were observed between E1, E2 with the highest mean and E3, C with lowest mean.Controlling the pre-rebuttal scores for the post-rebuttal scores, no meaningful difference was observed between any groups.The present study results indicate that a short-direct teaching of argumentation structures in addition to argumentation scaffolded indirect simulation was not effective (except on data structure). The argumentation scaffolded simulations were more effective than non-scaffolded simulations in terms of teaching all argumentation structures as well as academic success. Academic success was positively affected by non-scaffolded simulation compared to traditional teaching but not as well as argumentation scaffolded simulations.Thus we can concluded that one way to teach argumentation structures and rising academic success effectively is embedding the argumentation or reasoning structures into an instructional simulation. In these indirect simulation environments, students learn about content knowledge and learn to use argumentation structures in their explanation. Computer-supported environments may increase academic success; however, teaching thinking, reasoning or argumentation skills requires an appropriate design in which these skills are functionalized through scaffolding structures.