Accelerating Secondary Students' Learning Progression in Scientific Argumentation using Artificial Intelligence: An Educator's Guide and Online Course

Jansen, Thorben; Pünjer, Hannah; Schaller, Nils-Jonathan; Bahr, Luca; Höft, Lars

doi:10.2478/ristal-2025-0004

Abstract

Developing argumentation skills is key for secondary students' societal participation, particularly in socioscientific discussions. Multiple learning progressions describe steps in the development and provide the base for effective instruction. Using artificial intelligence (AI) has been suggested to improve the implementation of instruction through its emerging capabilities, including providing feedback, acting like a tutor, or serving as an argumentation partner. However, examples demonstrating how AI could specifically support students in their learning progressions are lacking. This article addresses this gap by providing guidance for using AI to improve learning progression-based argumentation instruction. The guidance includes example AI prompts that integrate pedagogical content knowledge. We have developed a free online course that complements this article, offering practice tasks, explanatory videos, and AI prompts to facilitate further implementation. This course is accessible at https://open.hpi.de/courses/chatgpt2025 and includes a custom AI argumentation trainer [https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6856795be5788191872fcf33b1cbebf2-argumentation-trainer].

References

Anthropic. (2024b). Prompt engineering overview. Retrieved December 22, 2024, from https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/overview
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bächtold, M., Pallarès, G., Checchi, K. D., & Munier, V. (2023). Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 761–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21816
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (Eds.). (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-824-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bahr, J. L., Höft, L., Lipnevich, A., Meyer, J., & Jansen, T. (2025). Exploring students' receptivity to feedback: A latent profile analysis. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2025.2467676
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Banihashem, S. K., Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Moon, J., & Drachsler, H. (2024). Feedback sources in essay writing: peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bouwer, R., & van der Veen, C. (2024). Write, talk and rewrite: the effectiveness of a dialogic writing intervention in upper elementary education. Reading and Writing, 37(6), 1435–1456.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chen, W., Han, Y., Tan, J., Chai, A. S. C., Lyu, Q., & Lyna. (2024). Exploring students' computer-supported collaborative argumentation with socioscientific issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 3324–3337.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chen, W., Lyu, Q., & Su, J. (2024). The role of individual preparation before collaboration: An exploratory study on students' computer-supported collaborative argumentation in a primary classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 33(4–5), 757–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2024.2397761
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024). Impact of AI assistance on student agency. Computers & Education, 210, 104967.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school Students' Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eemeren, F. H. van, Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (2015). Argumentation (pp. 3–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students' use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20358
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Friedrichsen, P., Sadler, T., Graham, K., & Brown, P. (2016). Design of a socio-scientific issue curriculum unit: Antibiotic resistance, natural selection, and modeling. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Graham, S., Skar, G. B., & Falk, D. Y. (2021). Teaching writing in the primary grades in Norway: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 34, 529–563.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Li, D., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Effects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students' argumentation skills and task motivation. Computers & Education, 203, 104862.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heitmann, P., Hecht, M., Schwanewedel, J., & Schipolowski, S. (2014). Students' Argumentative Writing Skills in Science and First-Language Education: Commonalities and differences. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3148–3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.962644
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, M. H., & Lingle, J. A. (2015). Facilitating problem-based learning by means of collaborative argument visualization software. Teaching Philosophy, 38(4), 371–398.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Höft, L., Meyer, J., Bernholt, S., & Jansen, T. (2025). A situated perspective on CONIC: Evidence of compensatory effects of conscientiousness and situational interest on the task level. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 81, 102375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102375
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huang, C. J., Chang, S. C., Chen, H. M., Tseng, J. H., & Chien, S. Y. (2015). A group intelligence-based asynchronous argumentation learning-assistance platform. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1408–1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1016533
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hubbart, J. A. (2025). Why We Must Argue: A Critique of the Essence, Purpose, and Craftsmanship of Argumentation. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 13(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2025.133016
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2015). The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 32–58.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jansen, T., Höft, L., Bahr, L., Kuklick, L., & Meyer, J. (2025) Constructive feedback can function as a reward: Students' emotional profiles in reaction to feedback perception mediate associations with task interest. Learning and Instruction, 95, 102030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102030
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jansen, T., Höft, L., Bahr, L., Fleckenstein, J., Möller, J., Köller, O., & Meyer, J. (2024) Comparing Generative AI and Expert Feedback to Students' Writing: Insights from Student Teachers. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 71(2), 80–92.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Keller, S. D., Fleckenstein, J., Krüger, M., Köller, O., & Rupp, A. A. (2020). English writing skills of students in upper secondary education: Results from an empirical study in Switzerland and Germany. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 100700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100700
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Keller, S. D., Lohmann, J., Trüb, R., Fleckenstein, J., Meyer, J., Jansen, T., & Möller, J. (2024). Language quality, content, structure: What analytic ratings tell us about EFL writing skills at upper secondary school level in Germany and Switzerland. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65, 101129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101129
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Klaver, L. T., M. Sins, P. H., & F. Guérin, L. J. (2023). Students' engagement with Socioscientific issues: Use of sources of knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(5), 1125–1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21828
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and practice, 1(1), 66–78.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child development, 74(5), 1245–1260.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Larrain, A., Freire, P., López, P., & Grau, V. (2019). Counter-arguing during curriculum-supported peer interaction facilitates middle-school students' science content knowledge. Cognition and Instruction, 37(4), 453–482.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lin, Y., & Hung, C. (2025). The synergistic effects in an AI-supported online scientific argumentation learning environment. Computers & Education, 229, 105251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105251
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meta. (2024b). Prompting. Retrieved December 22, 2024, from https://www.llama.com/docs/how-to-guides/prompting/#prompting
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Schiller, R., Liebenow, L. W., Steinbach, M., Horbach, A., & Fleckenstein, J. (2024). Using LLMs to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: AI-generated feedback increases secondary students' text revision, motivation, and positive emotions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meincke, L., Mollick, E., Mollick, L., & Shapiro, D. (2025). Prompting Science Report 1: Prompt Engineering is Complicated and Contingent. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04818
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mikeska, J. N., Francis, D. C., Lottero-Perdue, P. S., Park Rogers, M., Shekell, C., Bharaj, P. K., Howell, H., Maltese, A., Thompson, M., & Reich, J. (2025). Promoting preservice teachers' facilitation of argumentation in mathematics and science through digital simulations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 154, 104858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104858
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mistral AI. (2024b). Prompting capabilities. https://docs.mistral.ai/guides/prompting_capabilities/
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Naik, A., Yin, J. R., Kamath, A., Ma, Q., Wu, S. T., Murray, R. C., ... & Rose, C. P. (2025). Providing tailored reflection instructions in collaborative learning using large language models. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13548
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of science education, 21(5), 553–576.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Biemans, H. J. A., Smits, M., Vervoort, M. T. W., & Verbaan, C.-L. (2023). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students' argumentative essay quality. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 12757–12784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 479–500.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
OpenAI. (2024b). Six strategies for getting better results. Retrieved December 22, 2024, from https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/prompt-engineering/six-strategies-for-getting-better-results
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Osborne, J., & Pimentel, D. (2022). Science, misinformation, and the role of education. Science (New York, N.Y.), 378(6617), 246–248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq8093
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Peltzer, K., Lira Lorca, A., Krause, U., & Busse, V. (2024). Effects of formative feedback on argumentative writing in English and cross-linguistic transfer to German. Learning and Instruction, 92, 101935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101935
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Romero Ariza, M., Quesada Armenteros, A., & Estepa Castro, A. (2024). Promoting critical thinking through mathematics and science teacher education: the case of argumentation and graphs interpretation about climate change. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 41–59.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ruwe, T., & Mayweg-Paus, E. (2023). “Your argumentation is good”, says the AI vs humans – The role of feedback providers and personalised language for feedback effectiveness. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100189
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009
SadlerT. D. 2004 Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 5 513 536 10.1002/tea.20009

Open DOI Back to article
Schaller, N. J., Ding, Y., Horbach, A., Meyer, J., & Jansen, T. (2024, June). Fairness in Automated Essay Scoring: A Comparative Analysis of Algorithms on German Learner Essays from Secondary Education. In Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA 2024) (pp. 210–221).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schaller, N. J., Horbach, A., Höft, L. I., Ding, Y., Bahr, J. L., Meyer, J., & Jansen, T. (2024, May). DARIUS: A Comprehensive Learner Corpus for Argument Mining in German-Language Essays. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024) (pp. 4356–4367).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sahoo, P., Singh, A. K., Saha, S., Jain, V., Mondal, S., & Chadha, A. (2024). A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.07927
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smit, R., Rietz, F., & Büchel, D. (2025). Using the socioscientific issue approach to foster secondary students' argumentation skills, science self-efficacy beliefs and science interest. International Journal of Science Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2025.2460050
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1–2), 1–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wambsganss, T., Kueng, T., Soellner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2021, May). ArgueTutor: An adaptive dialog-based learning system for argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–13).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skulmowski, A. (2024). Placebo or assistant? Generative AI between externalization and anthropomorphization. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tavsanli, O. F., Graham, S., & Cao, Y. (2024). The Effect of the Write, Talk, and Rewrite Dialogic Writing Treatment on Argumentative Texts: a Replication Study in Türkiye. Educational Psychology Review, 36(4), 114.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yang, Y., Xia, Q., Liu, C., & Chiu, T. K. (2025). The impact of TPACK on teachers' willingness to integrate generative artificial intelligence (GenAI): The moderating role of negative emotions and the buffering effects of need satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 154, 104877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104877
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yang, C., Wang, X., Lu, Y., Liu, H., Le, Q. V., Zhou, D., & Chen, X. (2023, September). Large language models as optimizers. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Bb4VGOWELI
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socio-scientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Accelerating Secondary Students' Learning Progression in Scientific Argumentation using Artificial Intelligence: An Educator's Guide and Online Course

Abstract

Paradigm

My account