Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 7:1 (2018) ► pp.72–100

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Defending either a personal or an assigned standpoint

Role play in supporting secondary school students’ argumentation face to face and through chat

 | University of Jyväskylä
 | University of Jyväskylä
Published online: 7 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17015.sal
Abstract
This study clarifies whether a specific type of role play supports upper secondary school students’ collaborative argumentation. Data consist of 12 dyadic face-to-face and 12 chat debates. Data analysis focused on the quality of students’ argumentation. Comparisons were made between students who defended standpoints at variance with their personal opinions on the topics, between the two study modes and topics, and by gender. When the students defended a standpoint differing from their personal opinion, the male students engaged in counterargumentation more often than the female students. When, in turn, the students defended their personal standpoint, they produced both counterargumentative and non-argumentative speech turns equally often, and their arguments were more poorly elaborated than when they defended an assigned standpoint. The study suggests that role play in which both counterargumentation and students’ personal standpoints on an issue are taken into account is a viable means to support students’ high quality argumentation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Role play as a means to stimulate argumentation
  • 3.Role play in this study
  • 4.Research questions
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Teaching experiment
    • 5.2Data
    • 5.3Data analysis
      • 5.3.1Argumentativeness
      • 5.3.2Argument elaboration
      • 5.3.3Statistical analyses
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Quality of students’ argumentation in general
    • 6.2Quality of students’ argumentation by standpoint and gender
    • 6.3Quality of students’ argumentation by topic and gender
    • 6.4Quality of students’ argumentation by study mode and gender
  • 7.Discussion
  • References
References (69)
References
Andriessen, Jerry, Michael Baker and Dan Suthers. 2003. “Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions.” In Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. by Jerry Andriessen, Michael Baker and Dan Suthers, 1–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andriessen, Jerry, Michael Baker and Chiel van der Puil. 2011. “Socio-Cognitive Tensions in Collaborative Working Relations.” In Learning across sites: new tools, infrastructures and practices, ed. by Sten Ludvigsen, Andreas Lund, Ingvill Rasmussen and Roger Säljo, 222–242. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andriessen, Jerry and Baruch Schwarz. 2009. “Argumentative Design.” In Argumentation and learning. Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by Nathalie Muller Mirza and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, 145–174. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arvaja, Maarit, Helena Rasku-Puttonen, Päivi Häkkinen and Anneli Eteläpelto. 2003. “Constructing Knowledge Through a Role-Play in a Web-based Learning Environment.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 28 (4): 319–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asterhan, Christa S. C. and Baruch B. Schwarz. 2009. “Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications from Protocol Analyses of Peer-to-Peer Dialog.” Cognitive Science 331: 374–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asterhan, Christa S. C., Baruch B. Schwarz and Julia Gil. 2012. “Small-Group, Computer-Mediated Argumentation in Middle-School Classrooms: The Effects of Gender and Different Types of Online Teacher Guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology 821: 375–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Michael, Jerry Andriessen and Sanna Järvelä. 2013. “Introduction: visions of learning together.” In Affective Learning Together: Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning, ed. by Michael Baker, Jerry Andriessen and Sanna Järvelä, 1–30. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Michael, Jerry Andriessen, Kristine Lund, Marije van Amelsvoort and Matthieu Quignard. 2007. “Rainbow: A Framework for Analysing Computer-Mediated Pedagogical Debates.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2 (2–3): 315–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Michael, Matthieu Quignard, Kristine Lund and Marije van Amelsvoort. 2002. “Designing a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Situation for Broadening and Deepening Understanding of the Space of Debate.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation , Amsterdam, June 2002: 55–61. Amsterdam: Sic Sat Publications.
Ben-Ze’ev, Aaron. 1995. “Emotions and Argumentation.” Informal Logic 17 (2): 189–200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burnett, Cathy. 2003. “Learning to Chat: Tutor Participation in Synchronous Online Chat.” Teaching in Higher Education 81: 247–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carr, Tony, Lenda Cox, Andrea Eden and Monique Hanslo. 2004. ”From Peripheral to Full Participation in a Blended Trade Bargaining Simulation.” British Journal of Educational Technology 35 (2): 197–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chi, Michelene T. H., Miriam Bassok, Matthew W. Lewis, Peter Reimann and Robert Glaser. 1989. “Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems.” Cognitive Science 13 (2): 145–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chinn, Clark A. 2006. “Learning to Argue.” In Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology, ed. by Angela M. O’Donnell, Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver and Gijsbert Erkens, 355–383. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chinn, Clark A. and Douglas B. Clark. 2013. “Learning through Collaborative Argumentation.” In The international handbook of collaborative learning, ed. by Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Clark A. Chinn, Carol K. K. Chan and Angela M. O’Donnell, 314–332. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, Debra J. and Wiluam R. Freudenburg. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environment and Behavior, 281: 302–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Vries, Erica, Kristine Lund and Michael Baker. 2002. “Computer-Mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 11 (1): 63–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, Pierre and Mireille Bétrancourt. 2006. “Collaboration Load.” In Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory, ed. by Jan Elen and Richard Edward Clark, 142–163. Amsterdam, The Netherslands: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, Pierre and Daniel Schneider. 1995. “Collaborative Learning and the Internet.” ICCAI 95, 1995. Retrieved from [URL].
Epstein, Seymour. 2003. “Cognitive-Experiential Self Theory of Personality.” In Handbook of psychology: Vol 5. Personality and social psychology, ed. by Theodore Millon and Melvin J. Lerner, 159–184. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erkens, Gijsbert and Jeroen Janssen. 2008. “Automatic Coding of Dialogue Acts in Collaboration Protocols.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 3 (4): 447–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golder, Caroline and Delphine Pouit. 1999. “For a Debate to Take Place the Topic Must Be Debatable.” In Foundations of argumentative text processing, ed. by Jerry Andriessen and Pierre Coirier, 137–148. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guiller, Jane, Alan Durndell, A. and Anne Ross. 2008. “Peer Interaction and Critical Thinking: Face-to-Face or Online Discussion?” Learning and Instruction 181: 187–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holsbrink-Engels, Geralien. 2001. “Using a Computer Learning Environment for Initial Training in Dealing with Social-Communicative Problems.” British Journal of Educational Technology 32 (1): 53–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iordanou, Kalypso. 2013. “Developing Face-to-Face Argumentation Skills: Does Arguing on the Computer Help?” Journal of Cognition and Development 14 (2): 292–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeong, Allan. 2006. “Gender Interaction Patterns and Gender Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation.” The American Journal of Distance Education 20 (4): 195–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “The Effects of Intellectual Openness and Gender on Critical Thinking Processes in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation.” Distance Education 22 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeong, Allan and Gayle Davidson-Shivers. 2006. “The Effects of Gender Interaction Patterns on Student Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation.” Educational Technology, Research, and Development 541: 543–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, John J. 1988. “Applying Log-Linear Models in Educational Research.” Australian Journal of Education 32 (1): 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kolstoe, Stein D. 2000. “Consensus Projects: Teaching Science for Citizenship.” International Journal of Science Education 221: 645–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, Deanna, Victoria Shaw and Mark Felton. 1997. “Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentative Reasoning.” Cognition and Instruction 151: 287–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, Deanna and Wadiya Udell. 2007. “Coordinating Own and Other Perspectives in Argument.” Thinking and Reasoning 13 (2): 90–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Meredith, M. Anne Britt and Aaron A. Larson. 2004. “Disfluencies in Comprehending Argumentative Texts.” Reading Psychology 251: 205–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, Mei Y., Karin Leichtenstern, Michael Kriegel, Sibylle Enz, Ruth Aylett, Natalie Vannini, Lynne Hall and Paola Rizzo. 2011. “Technology-Enhanced Role-Play for Social and Emotional Learning Context – Intercultural Empathy.” Entertainment Computing 21: 223–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marttunen, Miika. 1997. Studying Argumentation in Higher Education By Electronic Mail. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 127. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marttunen, Miika and Leena Laurinen. 2001. ”Promoting Argumentation Skills in University: Comparing E-Mail and Face-to-Face Studies.” In Human-centered technology and learning, ed. by Hannakaisa Isomäki, Jouko Kari, Miika Marttunen, Antti Pirhonen and Jyrki Suomala, 17–53. University of Jyväskylä. Department of Teacher Education. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. ”Quality of Students’ Argumentation by E-Mail.” Learning Environments Research 51: 99–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marttunen, Miika, Leeena Laurinen, Lia Litosseliti and Kristine Lund. 2005. ”Argumentation Skills as Prerequisites for Collaborative Learning Among Finnish, French, and English Secondary School Students.” Educational Research and Evaluation 11 (4): 365–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCrudden, Matthew and Phillip Sparks. 2014. “Exploring the Effect of Task Instructions on Topic Beliefs and Topic Belief Justifications: A Mixed Methods Study.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 391: 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moerbeek, Hester and Gerda Casimir. 2005. “Gender Differences in Consumers’ Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 29 (4): 308–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, Wendy and Glenn Beaumont. 2003. “A Dialogic Approach to Argumentation: Using a Chat Room to Develop Early Adolescent Students’ Argumentative Writing.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 47 (2): 146–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muller Mirza, Nathalie, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, Valérie Tartas and Antonio Iannaccone. 2009. “Psychosocial Processes in Argumentation.” In Argumentation and learning. Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by Nathalie Muller Mirza and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, 67–90. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noroozi, Omid, Armin Weinberger, Harm J. A. Biemans, Martin Mulder and Mohammad Chizari. 2012. “Argumentation-based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A Synthesis of 15 Years of Research.” Educational Research Review 7 (2): 79–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Connor, Sue and Anne Ross. 2004. “WebCT Role-Playing: Immediacy Versus E-Mediacy in Learning Environments.” Learning Environments Research 71: 183–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perkins, David N. 1985. “Postprimary Education Has Little Impact on Informal Reasoning.” Journal of Educational Psychology 771: 562–571. Retrieved from [URL]
Prinsen, Fleur R., Monique L. L. Volman and Jan Terwel. 2007. “Gender-Related Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication and Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 231: 393–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robertson, Olivia, Jim Hewitt and Marlene Scardamalia, M. 2003. Gender participation patterns in Knowledge Forum: an analysis of two graduate-level classes. Poster presented at the IKIT Summer Institute 2003, Toronto.
Salminen, Timo, Miika Marttunen and Leena Laurinen. 2010. ”Visualising Knowledge From Chat Debates in Argument Diagrams.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (5): 379–391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. ”Argumentation in Secondary School Students’ Structured and Unstructured Chat Discussions.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 47 (2): 175–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheuer, Oliver, Frank Loll, Niels Pinkwart and Bruce M. McLaren. 2010. “Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State of the Art.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5 (1): 43–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Baruch B. 2009. “Argumentation and Learning.” In Argumentation and learning. Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by Nathalie Muller Mirza and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, 91–126. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schweizer, Karin, Manuela Paechter and Bernd Weidenmann. 2003. “Blended Learning as a Strategy to Improve Collaborative Task Performance.” Journal of Educational media 28 (2–3): 211–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simonneaux, Laurence. 2001. “Role-Play or Debate to Promote Students’ Argumentation and Justification on an Issue in Animal Transgenesis.” International Journal of Science Education 23 (9): 903–927. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sladek, Ruth M., Malcolm J. Bond and Paddy A. Phillips. 2010. “Age and Gender Differences in Preferences for Rational and Experiential Thinking.” Personality and Individual Differences 491: 907–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stein, Nancy L. and Elizabeth R. Albro. 2001. “The Origin and Nature of Arguments: Studies in Conflict Understanding, Emotion, and Negotiation.” Discourse Processes 32 (2–3): 113–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stein, Nancy L. and Ronan Bernas. 1999. “The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill.” In Foundations of argumentative text processing, ed. by Jerry Andriessen and Pierre Coirier, 97–116. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweller, John, Jeroen van Merriënboer and Fred Paas. 1998. “Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design.” Educational Psychology Review 101: 251–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toplak, Maggie E. and Keith E. Stanovich. 2003. “Associations Between Myside Bias on an Informal Reasoning Task and Amount of Post-Secondary Education.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 171: 851–860. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Udell, Wadiya. 2007. “Enhancing Adolescent Girls’ Argument Skills in Reasoning About Personal and Non-Personal Decisions.” Cognitive Development 221: 341–352. Retrieved from [URL]
Uitto, Anna, Kalle Juuti, Jari Lavonen, Reijo Byman and Veijo Meisalo. 2011. ”Secondary School Students’ Interests, Attitudes and Values Concerning School Science Related to Environmental Issues in Finland.” Environmental Education Research 17 (2): 167–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Bruggen, Jan M., Paul A. Kirschner and Wim Jochems. 2002. “External Representation of Argumentation in CSCL and the Management of Cognitive Load.” Learning and Instruction 12 (1): 121–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veerman, Arja. 2000. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Through Argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vincent, Andrew and John Shepherd. 1998. “Experiences in Teaching Middle East Politics via Internet-based Role-Play Simulations. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 98 (11). Retrieved from [URL]
Walton, Douglas N. 1989. “Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking.” Argumentation 31, 169–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, Noreen M. 1989. “Peer Interaction and Learning in Small Groups.” International Journal of Education Research 131: 21–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yardley-Matwiejczuk, Krysia M. 1997. Role Play: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeidler, Dana L., Troy D. Sadler, Scott Applebaum and Brendan E. Callahan. 2009. “Advancing Reflective Judgment Through Socioscientific Issues.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 461: 74–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zelezny, Lynnette C., Poh-Pheng Chua and Christina Aldrich. 2000. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 443–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zohar, Anat and Flora Nemet. 2002. “Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills Through Dilemmas in Human Genetics.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 391: 35–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Tuzinkievicz, María Agustina, Nadia Soledad Peralta & Mariano Andrés Castellaro
2025. Influence of technological environment and mediation on dialogical argumentative interactions. European Journal of Psychology of Education 40:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue