From the Courtroom to the Classroom: Enhancing L2 Learners’ Argumentative Skills Through a Mock Trial Simulation

Abstract

Background

Simulation tasks have become an increasingly popular pedagogical tool across various educational contexts, since they replicate real-world scenarios that foster active learning. Simulations encourage students to apply theoretical knowledge, make decisions, and develop skills that are directly transferable to academic and professional settings. In second language education, simulations are particularly valuable for developing higher-order skills, such as critical thinking, communication, and argumentation.

Aim

This study investigated whether a mock trial simulation contributes to the enhancement of argumentative skills among advanced L2 learners.

Method

The simulation, conducted in the context of an advanced language development course, provided student teachers with a platform to practice constructing, presenting, and defending arguments. Nineteen students participated, using The Handmaid’s Tale as the basis for their legal case. Data were gathered through a post-simulation questionnaire, which included both quantitative and qualitative components.

Results

The quantitative results indicated significant improvements in students’ use of evidence, logical reasoning, and ability to respond to counterarguments. Qualitative feedback revealed that students desired clearer guidelines, more preparation time, and more balanced participation.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings highlighted the value of simulation tasks as effective pedagogical tools that foster critical thinking, language proficiency, and argumentation skills. While the mock trial yielded positive outcomes, future studies should explore the use of such simulations with different populations and in varied educational contexts to further refine and extend this pedagogical tool. The study demonstrated the potential of simulations like mock trials as innovative methods for advancing both linguistic and cognitive skills in language learning environments.

Keywords

mock trial argumentative skills second language (L2) learning critical thinking pedagogical tools

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atwood

(1985). The Handmaid’s Tale. McClelland & Stewart.

Capdeferro

Romero

(2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1127

Capon

Kuhn

(2004). What's so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2201_3

Demircioglu

Karakus

Ucar

(2023). Developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in science classes. Science & Education, 32(5), 1165–1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00369-5

Demircioglu

Ucar

(2015). Investigating the effect of argument-driven inquiry in laboratory instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 267–283. DOI https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2324

Ennis

R. H.

(1991). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In Costa

(Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 68–71). The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ennis

R. H.

(2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Illinois College of Education. https://education.illinois.edu/docs/default-source/faculty-documents/robert-ennis/thenatureofcriticalthinking_51711_000.pdf

Huang

Zhang

L. J.

(2022). Facilitating L2 writers' metacognitive strategy use in argumentative writing using a process-genre approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1036831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036831

Illinois State Bar Association . (n.d.). Mock trial preparation and procedures. Retrieved from https://www.isba.org/teachers/mocktrial

10.

Kuhn

(1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002016

11.

Kuhn

(2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395

12.

Kuhn

Goh

Iordanou

Shaenfield

(2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1311–1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x

13.

Kuhn

Hemberger

Khait

(2016). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing. (2nd ed.). Routledge.

14.

Lane

(2024). Peace Project: The new needs of an Oral English classroom. In Bowell

Pepperell

Richardson

&Corino

M-T.

(Eds.). Revitalising Higher Education: Insights from Te Puna Aurei LearnFest 2022. Cardiff: Cardiff University Press, pp. 125-130

15.

Murphy

P. K.

Greene

J. A.

Allen

Baszczewski

Swearingen

Wei

Butler

A. M.

(2018). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation performance in science through Quality Talk discussions. Science Education, 102(6), 1239–1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21471

16.

Negretti

Kuteeva

(2011). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 academic writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.002

17.

Negretti

McGrath

(2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.003

18.

Nussbaum

E. M.

(2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359

19.

Preiss

D. D.

Castillo

J. C.

Flotts

San Martín

(2013). Assessment of argumentative writing and critical thinking in higher education: Educational correlates and gender differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.004

20.

Reedy

G. B.

(2015). Using cognitive load theory to inform simulation design and practice. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(8), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.05.004

21.

Sampson

Gleim

(2009). Argument-driven ınquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465–472.

22.

Sampson

Grooms

Walker

J. P.

(2011). Argument-driven ınquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientifc argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

23.

Song

Jang

(2023). Mock trial as a simulation strategy allowing undergraduate nursing students to experience evidence-based practice: A scoping-review. PLoS One, 18(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289789

24.

Toulmin

S. E.

(2003). The Uses of Argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.

25.

Tremblay

M. L.

Leppink

Dolmans

D. H.

(2020). Task complexity and cognitive load in simulation-based education: A randomised trial. Medical Education, 54(12), 1127–1135. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14941