Search

The present work examines the role of reflection in supporting the development of argument skill. Participants who engaged in argumentation practice with additional reflective activities outperformed a control group who only engaged in the argumentation practice. The experimental group showed greater gains in developing argument skill -- particularly in employing evidence to weaken an opposing position. Experimental condition participants also exhibited greater gains in content knowledge on the intervention topic compared to the control condition participants. Microgenetic analysis of dialogs during the interventions revealed a different pattern of progress across the two conditions. Experimental condition participants exhibited gradual and overall greater improvements at both strategic and meta levels -- meta-strategic and epistemic -- compared to control condition participants. Findings support the hypothesis that engagement in reflection during dialogic argumentation supports the development of metacognition, both as competence and disposition, which in turn supports performance at the strategic level. Educational implications are discussed, stressing the beneficial role of engagement in reflective activities for promoting argument skill, above and beyond practice.

The present study examines individuals' thinking during and after reading controversial historical accounts and the possible contribution of epistemic beliefs, emotions, and prior-knowledge in this context. Young adults (n = 39) were asked to read two accounts about a recent war in their country, an own-side account -- from a historian of their ethnic group -- and an other-side account -- from a historian from the adversary ethnic group. Participants were asked to think-aloud and report their emotions during reading. After reading, participants were asked to write a summary. Results showed that participants exhibited my-side bias during reading and writing, while there were also interesting individual differences in epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge. Participants with evaluativist epistemic beliefs were less likely to show my-side bias in the writing task. Epistemic beliefs, along with prior knowledge and the emotion of anger, predicted also low-epistemic processing during reading of other-side text. The paper concludes with a discussion of the educational implications in promoting critical thinking about controversial issues in history.

This study investigates whether university students' epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge about controversial socioscientific issues (SSIs) can predict the different types of arguments that students construct. Two hundred forty-three university students were asked to construct different types of supportive arguments--social, ethical, economic, scientific, ecological--as well as counterarguments and rebuttals after they had read a scenario on a SSI. Participants' epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge were assessed separately. Results showed that students' epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge predicted the quantity, quality, and diversity of the different types of arguments the students constructed. In particular, students who held sophisticated epistemic beliefs about the structure of knowledge and exhibited relatively "more robust" prior knowledge scores, produced arguments of greater quantity, better quality, and higher diversity than students with less sophisticated epistemic beliefs and low prior knowledge scores. Educational implications are discussed.

The aim of the present study was to examine science and non-science education secondary school teachers' skill to evaluate arguments, and how this skill relates to their skill to construct arguments and to their perceptions about their ability to teach argumentation skills effectively. The study also examined whether teachers' argument skills and their self-efficacy of teaching argumentation were domain-specific. Social-science education teachers, who teach literature and history, and physical science education teachers, were asked to write two essays -- one on a social topic and another on a socio-scientific topic--, to evaluate the quality of written arguments and to complete an instrument assessing their self-efficacy of teaching argumentation. Results showed that teachers' ability to construct arguments predicted their ability to evaluate arguments. Yet, although teachers expressed high self-efficacy in teaching argumentation in both domains, their abilities to evaluate and construct arguments were not sufficiently developed, in neither domain. The findings of the present study have important educational implications, suggesting that specific attention needs to be paid on teachers' skills of constructing and evaluating arguments.

Is it important to hear positions opposing one's own from others who genuinely believe them? We examine whether the thinking of those who engage in discourse with peers who hold an opposing view benefit by hearing arguments favoring the opposing position expressed by individuals known to hold this position. We report on 131 young adolescents who were given access to identical relevant evidence, and engaged in dialogs on gas vs solar energy, in preparation for a whole class debate. In the (randomly assigned) experimental classroom, electronic dialogs were conducted with a series of peers who held an opposing view; in the control classroom, dialogs were confined to same-side peers. Differences in prevalence and types of functional evidence-based argumentive idea units in individual final essays on the topic favored the experimental group. Also, differences by condition in participants' choice of evidence to access during the preceding dialogs reflected differences in patterns of inquiry. Differences appeared as well in post-intervention essays on a non-discourse topic, suggesting the superior group had made gains in understanding argumentation itself. Extension of the study longitudinally to a second year with a new topic showed continued gains and condition differences, supporting this interpretation, with the experimental group surpassing the control group. Potential generalization to adults' discourse on topics involving higher affect and commitment is considered.

The present study explores possible relations between students' epistemic perspective, learning strategies and text comprehension. In Study 1, 79 sixth graders completed paper-and-pencil instruments to measure their epistemic perspective and learning strategies. Students' epistemic perspective was assessed using a scenario-based instrument, the Livia Problem. Students were epistemically profiled as Absolutists, Multiplists and Evaluativists. Students' learning strategies were assessed through the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). In Study 2, 20 of the students who participated in Study 1 were individually interviewed to measure their learning strategies, where they were asked to read a text and think aloud. Results revealed that students who were profiled as Evaluativists showed greater self-efficacy, intrinsic value, use of cognitive strategies and self-regulation. In addition, students who were profiled as Evaluativists engaged in more effective learning strategies and exhibited better text comprehension compared to students who were profiled as Absolutists. In particular, students who exhibited an Evaluativist epistemic perspective engaged in the strategies of understanding vocabulary, summarising and underlying, while students who exhibited an Absolutist epistemic perspective engaged more in repeating information and quick reading. Our findings show that a mature epistemic perspective is associated with effective usage of learning strategies and text comprehension.

Relations between epistemic perspective and online epistemic processing of evidence when reading a text were examined. Thirty-seven young adolescents and 24 graduate university students were asked to read and think aloud with two texts, one in the history domain and the other in the science domain. Participants also completed a prior-knowledge test and an instrument assessing their epistemic perspective. Results showed that participants who exhibited an evaluativist epistemic perspective and high prior knowledge used the epistemic standard of scientific research more than participants who held a nonevaluativist epistemic perspective. Furthermore, an age-related developmental difference was observed, with adults using the epistemic standard of scientific research more than young adolescents. Domain differences were observed in both participants' epistemic perspectives and online epistemic processing. Participants overall engaged in online epistemic processing of evidence more in the history topic than in the science topic.

The aim of this study was to examine how students used evidence in argumentation while they engaged in argumentive and reflective activities in the context of a designed learning environment. A Web-based learning environment, SOCRATES, was developed, which included a rich data base on the topic of climate change. Sixteen 11th graders, working with a partner, engaged in electronic argumentive dialogs with classmates who held an opposing view on the topic and in some evidence-focused reflective activities, based on transcriptions of their dialogs. Another sixteen 11th graders, who studied the data base in the learning environment for the same amount of time as experimental-condition students but did not engage in an argumentive discourse activity, served as a comparison condition. Students who engaged in an evidence-focused dialogic intervention increased the use of evidence in their dialogs, used more evidence that functioned to weaken opponents' claims and used more accurate evidence. Significant gains in evidence use and in metalevel communication about evidence were observed after students engaged in reflective activities. We frame our discussion of these findings in terms of their implications for promoting use of evidence in argumentation and in relation to the development of epistemological understanding in science.

Arguing on the computer was used as a method to promote development of face-to-face argumentation skills in middle schoolers. In the study presented, sixth graders engaged in electronic dialogues with peers on a controversial topic and in some reflective activities based on transcriptions of the dialogues. Although participants initially exhibited limited ability in arguing both face-to-face and on the computer, by the end of the intervention, they exhibited significant advances in both discussion modes. The gains of practice in the electronic mode--increased levels of counterarguments and rebuttals--successfully transferred to the face-to-face mode. This suggests a generality in developing argument skills. (Contains 8 figures, 3 footnotes, and 4 tables.)

Instant-messaging software was used as a method to promote development of argumentation skills in middle schoolers. Transfer of skills across content domains was the major question investigated. Forty sixth graders engaged in electronic dialogues with peers on a controversial topic--for half a science topic (dinosaur extinction) and for half a social topic (home schooling). During 13 sessions, participants worked with a partner in arguing with a succession of pairs of classmates who held an opposing view on the topic; in addition, they engaged in some reflective activities based on transcriptions of the dialogues. Another 18 sixth graders served in a control (nonintervention) condition. Although transfer occurred in both directions, science condition participants exhibited transfer of skills to the social topic to a greater extent than did social condition participants to the science topic. Results show the transfer, and hence generality, of developing argument skills but also suggest the importance as well as feasibility of fostering argument skills within science and social domains. (Contains 4 figures and 2 tables.)

We identify three aspects of scientific thinking beyond the control-of-variables strategy that we claim are essential for students to master as a foundation for skilled scientific thinking. The first is strategic and involves the ability to coordinate effects of multiple causal influences on an outcome. The second is a mature understanding of the epistemological foundations of science, recognizing scientific knowledge as constructed by humans rather than simply discovered in the world. The third is the ability to engage in skilled argumentation in the scientific domain, with an appreciation of argumentation as entailing the coordination of theory and evidence. We present new empirical data with respect to the first two of these competencies, supporting the claim that they are not well developed by early adolescence and warrant attention and provision of effective kinds of scaffolding. (Contains 1 figure and 9 tables.)

We report a study of a class of 28 sixth graders engaged in an extended computer-supported argumentive discourse activity. Participants collaborated with a same-side peer in arguing against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue. Meta-level awareness was facilitated by conducting the dialogs via instant messaging software, which made available a transcript of the dialog that was used in additional reflective activities. In the course of dialogs on 3 successive topics, participants showed significant gains in meta-level communications about the discourse, reflecting at least implicit understanding of its goals, as well as in the strategic moves that constituted the discourse. The latter advances remained evident when the social support of a same-side partner was withdrawn.

The study examined (a) the extent to which teachers and preservice teachers understand the concept of energy and adhere to particular preconceptions associated with it; and (b) their ability to predict pupils' knowledge and understanding of the same concept. Teachers and preservice teachers completed a test by indicating for each item what their response was and what an average sixth-grade pupil's response might have been, and their predictions were compared to actual pupil performance. Results indicated that teachers' and preservice teachers' understanding of the concept was far from complete, and that teachers were, in general, more likely to overestimate pupils' knowledge. (Contains 5 tables.)