Author
Listed:
- Thiemo Wambsganss
(Institute Digital Technology Management, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3005 Bern, Switzerland)
- Andreas Janson
(Institute of Information Systems and Digital Business, University of St. Gallen, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland)
- Matthias Söllner
(Research Center for IS Design, Information Systems and Systems Engineering, University of Kassel, 34121 Kassel, Germany)
- Ken Koedinger
(Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)
- Jan Marco Leimeister
(Institute of Information Systems and Digital Business, University of St. Gallen, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland; and Research Center for IS Design, Information Systems, University of Kassel, 34121 Kassel, Germany)
Abstract
Argumentation is an omnipresent rudiment of daily communication and thinking. The ability to form convincing arguments is not only fundamental to persuading an audience of novel ideas but also plays a major role in strategic decision making, negotiation, and constructive, civil discourse. However, humans often struggle to develop argumentation skills, owing to a lack of individual and instant feedback in their learning process, because providing feedback on the individual argumentation skills of learners is time-consuming and not scalable if conducted manually by educators. Grounding our research in social cognitive theory, we investigate whether dynamic technology-mediated argumentation modeling improves students’ argumentation skills in the short and long term. To do so, we built a dynamic machine-learning (ML)–based modeling system. The system provides learners with dynamic writing feedback opportunities based on logical argumentation errors irrespective of instructor, time, and location. We conducted three empirical studies to test whether dynamic modeling improves persuasive writing performance more so than the benchmarks of scripted argumentation modeling (H1) and adaptive support (H2). Moreover, we assess whether, compared with adaptive support, dynamic argumentation modeling leads to better persuasive writing performance on both complex and simple tasks (H3). Finally, we investigate whether dynamic modeling on repeated argumentation tasks (over three months) leads to better learning in comparison with static modeling and no modeling (H4). Our results show that dynamic behavioral modeling significantly improves learners’ objective argumentation skills across domains, outperforming established methods like scripted modeling, adaptive support, and static modeling. The results further indicate that, compared with adaptive support, the effect of the dynamic modeling approach holds across complex (large effect) and simple tasks (medium effect) and supports learners with lower and higher expertise alike. This work provides important empirical findings related to the effects of dynamic modeling and social cognitive theory that inform the design of writing and skill support systems for education. This paper demonstrates that social cognitive theory and dynamic modeling based on ML generalize outside of math and science domains to argumentative writing.
Suggested Citation
Thiemo Wambsganss & Andreas Janson & Matthias Söllner & Ken Koedinger & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2025.
"Improving Students’ Argumentation Skills Using Dynamic Machine-Learning–Based Modeling,"
Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 474-507, March.
Handle:
RePEc:inm:orisre:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:474-507
DOI: 10.1287/isre.2021.0615
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:474-507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.