An Exploratory Neuroimaging Study of Argumentative and Summary Writing

Abstract

Science teachers often work with students in an effort to develop cognitive strategies toward understanding science through various modes of writing. The two modes of writing that have been extensively explored through traditional science education research are argumentative writing, in which the objective is to convince someone of a viewpoint using evidence, and summary writing, which is explanatory writing pulling across multiple domains of knowledge. The increased focus on cognitive strategies coupled with the concept of cognitive demand called for in the Next Generation Science Standards creates a need to examine and triangulate claims regarding identified cognitive attributes such as critical thinking, using neuroimaging techniques. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of writing type and audience on localized hemodynamic response in college-aged students. Cognitive dynamics are assessed using functional near-infrared spectroscopy, a novel neuroimaging technology. The standardized hemodynamic responses were tested for differences using repeated measures ANOVA (rANOVA). rANOVA reveals a main effect of writing type (summary or argumentative) across the grouping of audience (F(1,2) = 32.00 p = 0.030), with argumentative writing (mean = 3.89 ± 0.015) activations significantly lower in optodes locations 15 and 16. Group differences highlight changes in processing areas dependent on the type of writing and audience and suggest independence of activations.