Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Accelerating Secondary Students' Learning Progression in Scientific Argumentation using Artificial Intelligence: An Educator's Guide and Online Course Cover

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

Open Access
|Dec 2025

References

  1. Anthropic. (2024b). Prompt engineering overview. Retrieved December 22, 2024, from https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/overview
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024). Impact of AI assistance on student agency. Computers & Education, 210, 104967.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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).
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. Hoffmann, M. H., & Lingle, J. A. (2015). Facilitating problem-based learning by means of collaborative argument visualization software. Teaching Philosophy, 38(4), 371–398.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and practice, 1(1), 66–78.
  31. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
  32. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child development, 74(5), 1245–1260.
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. Meta. (2024b). Prompting. Retrieved December 22, 2024, from https://www.llama.com/docs/how-to-guides/prompting/#prompting
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Mistral AI. (2024b). Prompting capabilities. https://docs.mistral.ai/guides/prompting_capabilities/
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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.
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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).
  56. 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).
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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).
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 26
Published on: Dec 31, 2025
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2025 Thorben Jansen, Hannah Pünjer, Nils-Jonathan Schaller, Luca Bahr, Lars Höft, published by Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (GfD e.V.)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.