Why Argue? Developing Understanding of the Purposes and Values of Argumentive Discourse

Case-Based Collaborative Learning in Undergraduate Radiology Teaching-Are Essential Conditions for Group Discussions Met?

BACKGROUND

Delivering case-based collaborative learning (cCBL) at scale using technology that both presents the clinical problem authentically and seeks to foster quality group discussion is a challenge, especially argumentation which is critical for effective learning. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of essential conditions to capitalize on a technology-enhanced cCBL scenario for teaching radiology and facilitating quality group discussion.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to 114 fourth-year medical students who completed a technology-enhanced cCBL scenario for teaching neuroradiology. It consisted of individual online pre-class work and face-to-face in-class work, where group discussion followed individual work at a workstation. Items from the "Heedful Interrelating in Collaborative Educational Settings" scale and "positive emotional engagement" questionnaire assessed the quality of social-cognitive processes and emotional engagement during the group discussions. Structured interviews were used to explore the teachers' awareness of and engagement with the technology.

RESULTS

The mean scores of most "heedfulness" items were below 3.5 (7-point scale), suggesting that participants did not enter the debriefing with a mindset conducive for argumentation. However, for the affective states "interest" and "enjoyment" the mean scores were above 5. Free text comments suggested participants enjoyed the superficial interactions, but did not necessarily engage in argumentation. Structured interviews revealed teachers were aware of the possibilities of the learning dashboard and used it as a common frame of reference, but did not really succeed to use it as a springboard for discussion.

CONCLUSION

A technology-enhanced cCBL scenario is useful for teaching radiology in undergraduate medical education, but the added value of acquiring in-depth knowledge will only be achieved when students are aware of the importance of an "heedful" mind-set.

Is There a Right Way? Productive Patterns of Interaction during Collaborative Problem Solving

Compelling research evidence shows benefits for student learning from explaining one’s ideas and engaging with the ideas of others. However, whether certain patterns of group interaction may engender this productive student participation is unknown. Using data from two third grade mathematics classrooms, and over the course of six days during a five-month span, we investigated how students interacted with each other to solve problems when the teacher was not driving the interaction. We identified multiple profiles of group interaction that yielded highly-detailed participation for some or all students in the group. These profiles varied in terms of whether students interacted in an ongoing, sustained manner or interacted periodically but not continually, whether one or multiple students initiated problem-solving strategies, and whether group members worked jointly or largely separately on their strategies. No single profile of group interaction was either necessary or sufficient to lead to highly-detailed participation for all students in the group.

Young Schoolchildren’s Epistemic Development: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study

How children seek knowledge and evaluate claims may depend on their understanding of the source of knowledge. What shifts in their understandings about why scientists might disagree and how claims about the state of the world are justified? Until about the age of 41/2, knowledge is seen as self-evident. Children believe that knowledge of reality comes directly through our senses and what others tell us. They appeal to these external sources in order to know. The attainment of Theory of Mind (ToM) at this age is commonly seen as the significant shift in development in understanding disagreements in knowledge claims. Children attaining ToM understand that someone exposed to incorrect or incomplete information might have false beliefs. Disagreement, then, is still attributed to objective sources of knowledge. The current study examines the later developing Interpretive Theory of Mind (iToM) as the basis for children’s understanding of how people with access to the same information might disagree and what this means for how to provide justification for a knowledge claim. Fourteen 2nd graders with the most iToM responses to four tasks and 14 with the fewest iToM responses were selected from a larger sample of 91. In analyses of interviews about a story in which two experts make different claims about a scientific phenomenon, those in the high iToM group noted subjective perspective and processes as the source of disagreement and suggested the need for investigation as the means to knowing. In contrast, those in the low iToM group mostly could not explain the source of disagreement and held that knowledge is acquired from external sources. A comparison of the interviews regarding the science story 2 years later allows for a qualitative description of the development. Those in the low iToM group showed more general recognition of subjective and constructive processes in knowing whereas those in the high iToM group identified interpretive processes and the relativity of perspectives with implications for how observations were conducted and interpreted. Only those in the high iToM group referred to the importance of evidence as a basis for knowledge claims at either point in the study.

Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in using argumentative discourse in educational settings. However, in a previous study, we found that discourse goals (persuasion vs. consensus) while arguing can affect student outcomes in both content learning and reasoning.

AIMS

In this study, we look at argumentative discourse data from a previous study to ask how differences in discourse might account for the differences we observed in learning and reasoning outcomes.

SAMPLE

One hundred and five dialogues (57 disputative, 48 consensus) between 7th grade science students attending a public high school near Tarragona, Spain.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to conditions and paired with peers who disagreed with them on three topics related to renewable energy sources. After instruction on each topic, they were asked to either 'argue to convince' (persuasion condition) or 'argue to reach consensus' (consensus condition) on that topic. Conversations were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis.

RESULTS

Students in the persuasion condition engaged in shorter conversational exchanges around argumentative claims and were more likely to use moves that foreclosed discussion, whereas students in the consensus condition were more likely to use moves that elicited, elaborated on, and integrated their partners' ideas.

CONCLUSIONS

When arguing to reach - rather than defend - a conclusion, students are more likely to coconstruct knowledge by exchanging and integrating arguments. These findings are consistent with predictions about the potential of argumentation for knowledge building and suggest that teachers must attend to discourse goals when using argumentation to support learning and reasoning.

Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays

BACKGROUND

There is burgeoning research within educational psychology on both epistemic cognition and multiple-documents literacy, as well as on relationships between the two constructs.

AIM

To examine relationships between epistemic cognition concerning the justification of knowledge claims and sourcing and argumentation skills.

SAMPLE

Participants were 51 Norwegian undergraduates.

METHOD

Three dimensions of justification were identified in think-aloud protocols based on students' reading of six documents presenting conflicting claims on the controversial scientific issue of cell phone radiation and health risks: justification by authority, personal justification and justification by multiple sources. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the unique predictability of these dimensions for essay performance after removing variance associated with prior knowledge about the topic of the documents.

RESULTS

After controlling for topic knowledge, justification by multiple sources uniquely predicted students' sourcing and argumentation in essays that they wrote after reading the documents, with students trying to justify knowledge claims by corroborating across several sources of information more likely to include explicit source citations, link sources and contents, and display better, more integrated argumentation in their essays.

CONCLUSION

Findings are considered in the light of a theoretical framework for multiple-documents literacy adapted to the domain of science, and both theoretical and educational implications are discussed.

Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking

Argumentive reasoning skills are featured in the new K-12 Common Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), yet with little said about their nature or how to instill them. Distinguishing reasoning skills from writing skills, we report on a multiyear intervention that used electronically conducted dialogues on social issues as the medium to develop argumentive reasoning skills in two cohorts of young adolescents. Intervention groups demonstrated transfer of the dialogic activity to two individual essays on new topics; argument quality for these groups exceeded that of comparison groups who participated in an intervention involving the more face-valid activity of extensive essay writing practice, along with whole-class discussion. The intervention group also demonstrated greater awareness of the relevance of evidence to argument. The dialogic method thus appears to be a viable one for developing cognitive skills that the comparison-group data show do not routinely develop during this age period.