The Effect of E-Argumentation Supported İnstruction on Middle School Students’ Academic Achievement, Argumentation Skills and Epistemic Beliefs

Abstract

This study investigated e-Argumentation software's impact on middle school students’ (N = 838, grades 5-8) academic achievement, argumentation skills, and epistemological beliefs, compared to Software-free Argumentation and traditional teaching. A mixed-methods design, incorporating a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group approach and a multiple case study, assigned students to e-Argumentation, Software-free Argumentation, or Control groups. Data were collected via achievement tests, argumentation rubrics, an epistemological belief scale, an epistemic vignette, and student interviews. Quantitative analyses revealed that both argumentation groups significantly outperformed controls in academic achievement. The e-Argumentation group demonstrated higher achievement than the no-software group in grades 6 and 8, while the reverse was observed in grade 5; no significant difference was found in grade 7. Descriptively, e-Argumentation groups produced higher quality arguments. The impact on epistemological beliefs was limited; quantitative measures indicated a small e-Argumentation advantage over controls in grades 7-8, though interviews suggested increased student awareness of their beliefs and the nature of scientific knowledge. In conclusion, argumentation-based instruction effectively improves academic achievement and argumentation skills in science. e-Argumentation software shows promise as a supportive tool, but fostering changes in epistemological beliefs appears to be a more complex, long-term process.