Abstract:

In the literature, there is no homogeneous definition of argumentation competence, or standardized instruments to analyze and assess argumentation competence components. Similarly, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the relationships between various components of argumentation competence (knowledge, behavior and attitude), and between such components and domain-specific knowledge. In the present study, we investigated the aforementioned relationships by means of an exploratory study with a pre- and post-test design in an authentic non-scaffolded educational setting in the in the field of Global and EU Environmental Law & Policy. In addition, we investigated the differences in argumentation behavior between successful and less-successful students, in terms of domain-specific knowledge gain. Contrary to our expectations, the results did not show any substantial relationships between the various components of argumentation competence. However, the results showed a relationship between argumentation behavior and domain-specific knowledge. Similarly, results suggested that the capacity of students to transfer argumentation behavior to similar argumentation tasks is related to the students’ domain expertise or prior domain-specific knowledge. Finally, successful students demonstrated better argumentation behavior than less-successful students. Implications, suggestions and future research are discussed.

Keywords:

Argumentation, argumentation competence, argumentation scaffolding, computer-supported collaborative argumentation.