Little is known about the role of prompts to help learners solve ill-structured learning problems. Instructors do not devote adequate time to formulate pedagogically useful prompts, and the usefulness of different types of prompt is unclear. This mixed-methods study examined the role of argumentative prompts in the writing of essays based on business case studies. A significant (p < .001) relationship with a large effect size was found between the type of argumentative prompt (rhetorical and dialectical) and argumentative depth. Alternative argumentative positions were found to significantly (p < .001) mediate the relationship between argumentative prompt type argumentative depth with a large effect size. Verification and elaboration strategies were utilized in a similar way across both rhetorical and dialectical prompts. Dialectical prompts did not appear to be more effective than rhetorical prompts when using evidence strategies. Rebuttal appeared to be utilized more in response to dialectical prompts. The implications are that instructors should ensure that both rhetorical and dialectal prompts are provided in assignments involving ill-structured learning problems.

关于提示在帮助学习者解决结构不良的学习问题方面的作用知之甚少。教师没有投入足够的时间来制定对教学有用的提示，不同类型提示的用处尚不清楚。这项混合方法研究检查了论证提示在基于商业案例研究的论文写作中的作用。在议论提示的类型（修辞和辩证）和议论深度之间发现了显着（p < .001）与大效应量的关系。发现替代性议论立场显着 (p < .001) 调解议论提示型议论深度与大效应量之间的关系。在修辞和辩证提示中以类似的方式使用验证和阐述策略。在使用证据策略时，辩证提示似乎并不比修辞提示更有效。反驳似乎更多地用于回应辩证提示。这意味着教师应该确保在涉及结构不良的学习问题的作业中提供修辞和方言提示。