The development of argument skills

Motivating and Shaping Scientific Argumentation in Lab Reports

Writing a lab report can be an opportunity for students to engage in scientific thinking. Yet students' lab reports often do not exhibit evidence of such engagement. Students' writing can appear focused on "filling in" required components and reporting on predetermined conclusions. We conducted a design experiment in an introductory biology laboratory course and examined the impact on students' engagement in argumentation in lab reports. Over two design iterations, students' arguments more often considered and integrated multiple claims, included a broader range of evidence and ideas, and gave appropriate attention to uncertainty in conclusions. We argue that two interrelated changes to the design of the lab course made these shifts possible. First, we restructured the role of instructors to position them as an audience interested in students' thinking. Second, we introduced more uncertainty into the lab activities to provoke consideration of multiple interpretations. We propose that these changes created a different rhetorical context that helped motivate and shape students' engagement in argumentation. More broadly, we suggest that an important alternative to explicitly scaffolding knowledge and skills is to design learning environments that can inspire students to engage in a range of scientific practices more authentically.

Oral Argumentation Skills between Process and Product

Oral argumentation skills have become a ‘hot topic’ within pragmatic language acquisition research as well as didactical research. In this study, we first discuss characteristics specific to oral argumentation which, compared to written argumentation, has its own mediality and therefore specific requirements. To reconstruct different levels of oral argumentation skills of school children in grades 2, 4 and 6, we collected a corpus of 180 peer discussions without adult supervision and analyzed them based on conversation analysis. In our case study we compare two conversations in terms of different modalizations and epistemic stances in positionings and justifications and briefly show how the use of modalizations can shape both the character as well as the argumentative structure of a conversation. We argue that process-related and stylistic conversational aspects beyond structural aspects in a narrow sense shape oral argumentation to a high degree and therefore belong to the core aspects of oral argumentation skills.

Preschool children's use of meta-talk to make rational collaborative decisions

In collaborative decision-making, partners compare reasons behind conflicting proposals through meta-talk. We investigated UK-based preschoolers' (mixed socioeconomic status) use of meta-talk (Data collection: 2018-2020). In Study 1, 5- and 7-year-old peer dyads (N = 128, 61 girls) heard conflicting claims about an animal from two informants. One prefaced her claim with "I know"; the other with "I think". Dyads identified the more reliable informant through meta-talk ("She said she knows"). In Study 2, 3- and 5-year-olds (N = 64, 34 girls) searched for a toy with an adult partner making incorrect proposals. Children refuted this through reporting what they had witnessed (It cannot be there because "I saw it move", "she moved it"). In preschool period, children start using meta-talk to make rational collaborative decisions.

Successful Problem Solving in Genetics Varies Based on Question Content

Problem solving is a critical skill in many disciplines but is often a challenge for students to learn. To examine the processes both students and experts undertake to solve constructed-response problems in genetics, we collected the written step-by-step procedures individuals used to solve problems in four different content areas. We developed a set of codes to describe each cognitive and metacognitive process and then used these codes to describe more than 1800 student and 149 expert answers. We found that students used some processes differently depending on the content of the question, but reasoning was consistently predictive of successful problem solving across all content areas. We also confirmed previous findings that the metacognitive processes of planning and checking were more common in expert answers than student answers. We provide suggestions for instructors on how to highlight key procedures based on each specific genetics content area that can help students learn the skill of problem solving.

Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches

Over the past 20 years, a broad and diverse research literature has emerged to address how students learn to argue through dialogue in educational contexts. However, the variety of approaches used to study this phenomenon makes it challenging to find coherence in what may otherwise seem to be disparate fields of study. In this integrative review, we propose looking at how learning to argue (LTA) has been operationalized thus far in educational research, focusing on how different scholars have framed and fostered argumentative dialogue, assessed its gains, and applied it in different learning contexts. In total, 143 studies from the broad literature on educational dialogue and argumentation were analysed, including all educational levels (from primary to university). The following patterns for studying how dialogue fosters LTA emerged: whole-class ‘low structure’ framing with a goal of dialogue, small-group ‘high structure’ framing with varied argumentative goals, and studies with one-to-one dialectic framing with a goal of persuasive deliberation. The affordances and limitations of these different instructional approaches to LTA research and practice are discussed. We conclude with a discussion of complementarity of the approaches that emerged from our analysis in terms of the pedagogical methods and conditions that promote productive and/or constructive classroom interactions.

Deliberative Teaching as an Emergent Field: The Challenge of Articulating Diverse Research Agendas to Promote Educational Experiences for Citizenship

Democracies are increasingly dependent upon sustainable citizenship, that is, active participation and engagement with the exercising of rights in a field of plural interests, often contradictory and in conflict. This type of citizenship requires not only social inclusion, habits of knowledge, and evidence-based reasoning but also argumentation skills, such as the individual and social capacity to dispute and exercise individual and social rights, and to deal peacefully with sociopolitical conflict. There is empirical evidence that educational deliberative argumentation has a lasting impact on the deep and flexible understanding of knowledge, argumentation skills, and political and citizenship education. However, these three trends of research have developed independently with insufficient synergy. Considering the relevance of deliberative education for contemporaneous democracies and citizenship, in this paper we seek to converge in a field of interlocution, calling it deliberative teaching. Our aim is to propose a way to increase the dialog and collaboration between the diffuse literature on argumentation and education, highlighting both the main theoretical and empirical gaps and challenges that remain and the possibilities to advance our knowledge and the educational impact that this integrating field could offer.

"Argue With Me": A Method for Developing Argument Skills

Philosophers, psychologists, and educators all acknowledge the need to support individuals to develop argument skills. Less clear is how to do so. Here, we examine a particular program, the “Argue with Me” dialogue-based pedagogical approach, having this objective. Reviewing approximately 30 studies that have used the “Argue with Me” (AWM) method with students of different backgrounds and educational levels—primary, middle, high school, and university—across five different countries, we examine its strengths and limitations in terms of what develops and how this development occurs. Dense engagement in goal-based activities involving extended dialogic practice and reflection is shown to be effective in fostering argument skills and dispositions. Studies examining the mechanisms of such development identify the role of meta-level understanding regarding the purpose of argument. This understanding is epistemological in nature and supports the development of dialogic skills at the strategic level. In addition to examining the AWM method as a means for supporting the development of argument skills, this review examines how empirical research employing the method in varying contexts provides insights into the nature of argument skills and their development, as well as the relations between argument skills and other skills or forms of understanding. For instance, we examine how studies employing the AWM method answer questions such as “How general or content-specific are argument skills?” or “How do dialogic argument and individual written or spoken argument connect as they develop?” We address these questions by examining evidence regarding the transfer of gains across topics, domains, and individual vs. dialogic modes of expression. Finally, the pedagogical implications of the “Argue with Me” approach are discussed, especially with regard to its potential both as a stand-alone method for developing argument skills and integrated into traditional literacy and social studies curricula.

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information-A Literature Review

Many urgent problems that societies currently face—from climate change to a global pandemic—require citizens to engage with scientific information as members of democratic societies as well as to solve problems in their personal lives. Most often, to solve their epistemic aims (aims directed at achieving knowledge and understanding) regarding such socio-scientific issues, individuals search for information online, where there exists a multitude of possibly relevant and highly interconnected sources of different perspectives, sometimes providing conflicting information. The paper provides a review of the literature aimed at identifying (a) constraints and affordances that scientific knowledge and the online information environment entail and (b) individuals' cognitive and motivational processes that have been found to hinder, or conversely, support practices of engagement (such as critical information evaluation or two-sided dialogue). Doing this, a conceptual framework for understanding and fostering what we call online engagement with scientific information is introduced, which is conceived as consisting of individual engagement (engaging on one's own in the search, selection, evaluation, and integration of information) and dialogic engagement (engaging in discourse with others to interpret, articulate and critically examine scientific information). In turn, this paper identifies individual and contextual conditions for individuals' goal-directed and effortful online engagement with scientific information.

A review of technologies for collaborative online information seeking: On the contribution of collaborative argumentation

In everyday life, people seek, evaluate, and use online sources to underpin opinions and make decisions. While education must promote the skills people need to critically question the sourcing of online information, it is important, more generally, to understand how to successfully promote the acquisition of any skills related to seeking online information. This review outlines technologies that aim to support users when they collaboratively seek online information. Upon integrating psychological-pedagogical approaches on trust in and the sourcing of online information, argumentation, and computer-supported collaborative learning, we reviewed the literature (N = 95 journal articles) on technologies for collaborative online information seeking. The technologies we identified either addressed collaborative online information seeking as an exclusive process for searching for online information or, alternatively, addressed online information seeking within the context of a more complex learning process. Our review was driven by three main research questions: We aimed to understand whether and how the studies considered 1) the role of trust and critical questioning in the sourcing of online information, 2) the learning processes at play when information seekers engage in collaborative argumentation, and 3) what affordances are offered by technologies that support users' collaborative seeking of online information. The reviewed articles that focused exclusively on technologies for seeking online information primarily addressed aspects of cooperation (e.g., task management), whereas articles that focused on technologies for integrating the processes of information seeking into the entire learning processes instead highlighted aspects of collaborative argumentation (e.g., exchange of multiple perspectives and critical questioning in argumentation). Seven of the articles referred to trust as an aspect of seekers' sourcing strategies. We emphasize how researchers', users', and technology developers' consideration of collaborative argumentation could expand the benefits of technological support for seeking online information.

Young Children's Ability to Produce Valid and Relevant Counter-Arguments

In collaborative problem solving, children produce and evaluate arguments for proposals. We investigated whether 3- and 5-year-olds (N = 192) can produce and evaluate arguments against those arguments (i.e., counter-arguments). In Study 1, each child within a peer dyad was privately given a reason to prefer one over another solution to a task. One child, however, was given further information that would refute the reasoning of their partner. Five-year-olds, but not 3-year-olds, identified and produced valid and relevant counter-arguments. In Study 2, 3-year-olds were given discourse training (discourse that contrasted valid and invalid counter-arguments) and then given the same problem-solving tasks. After training, 3-year-olds could also identify and produce valid and relevant counter-arguments. Thus, participating in discourse about reasons facilitates children's counter-argumentation.

When (and When Not) to Make Exceptions: Links among Age, Precedent Setting Decisions, and Argument Evaluation

Negative precedents are set when, in the absence of mitigating conditions, social rules are not enforced by relevant authorities. This study examined the effects of normative (i.e., to enforce rules) and nonnormative arguments (i.e., to "make exceptions") on decisions that could establish negative precedents and whether those effects differed for children and adolescents. As expected, on baseline problems, age correlated positively with decision-making performance. After receiving normative arguments, normative decisions increased and adolescents-but not preadolescents-transferred their understanding to novel problems. Nonnormative arguments led to decrements in normative decisions across ages. However, only for preadolescents did performance decrements following nonnormative arguments transfer to novel problems. Discussion focuses on the abilities to engage in "metacognitive intercession," variability in children's and adolescents' decisions, and developments in the understanding of the consequences of violating the social rules.

Interactivity: A Potential Determinant of Learning by Preparing to Teach and Teaching

It has been suggested that preparing to teach and teaching are conditionally effective in enhancing one's own learning. This paper focuses on interactivity - the level of teacher-student interaction in expected or actual teaching - as the potential key to understanding and controlling the variability in the effectiveness of learning by preparing to teach and teaching. By summarizing and reanalyzing the results of previous studies, I suggest that the learning benefits of studying with the expectation of direct teaching (i.e., teaching a student face-to-face) are greater than those of studying with the expectation of indirect teaching (i.e., teaching a student indirectly by creating a lecture video, providing written explanations, or using other means) and that learning by direct teaching surpasses learning by explaining to oneself or indirect teaching at least after preparing to do so. Next, three candidate explanations for the impact of interactivity are discussed: the advantages of asking and answering questions, obtaining additional information about and from one's student, and enhancing one's motivation to process learning material deeply while preparing to teach and teaching. Finally, I conclude with the remaining questions and directions for future research.

The Effect of Peer-Group Argumentative Dialogue on Delayed Gains in Scientific Content Knowledge

Experimental evidence has shown the effect of peer-group argumentation on scientific concept development. However, questions regarding how and why it happens remain. The aim of this study is to contribute, with experimental evidence gathered in naturalistic settings (classrooms), to the understanding of the relationship between peer-group argumentation and content knowledge learning, exploring the role that individual argumentative skills play. In total, sixty-one fourth-grade students (aged 9-10 years) participated in the study (thirty-nine female). One teacher was invited to teach a thematic unit (Forces), with lesson plans especially developed to foster argumentation in the classroom. The second teacher taught as usual. Students' conceptual understanding and argumentative skills were evaluated individually, both before and after the lessons. Although there were no differences in the immediate post-test scores between groups (after controlling for pre-test), the intervention group showed significantly higher scores in delayed post-tests. Regression analyses showed that the ratio of argumentative utterances per minute of group work predicted students' scores in delayed post-test disciplinary content knowledge after controlling for initial levels of learning. Argumentation skill gains did not impact learning, but initial levels of argumentation skills predicted delayed scientific content knowledge post-test.

Does prior domain-specific content knowledge influence students' recall of arguments surrounding interdisciplinary topics?

Awareness of various arguments can help interactants present opinions, stress points, and build counterarguments during discussions. At school, some topics are taught in a way that students learn to accumulate knowledge and gather arguments, and later employ them during debates. Prior knowledge may facilitate recalling information on well structured, fact-based topics, but does it facilitate recalling arguments during discussions on complex, interdisciplinary topics? We assessed the prior knowledge in domains related to a bioethical topic of 277 students from Germany (approximately 15 years old), their interest in the topic, and their general knowledge. The students read a text with arguments for and against prenatal diagnostics and tried to recall the arguments one week later and again six weeks later. Prior knowledge in various domains related to the topic individually and separately helped students recall the arguments. These relationships were independent of students' interest in the topic and their general knowledge.

Children's reasoning with peers in cooperative and competitive contexts

We report two studies that demonstrate how five- and seven-year-olds adapt their production of arguments to either a cooperative or a competitive context. Two games elicited agreements from peer dyads about placing animals on either of two halves of a playing field owned by either child. Children had to produce arguments to justify these decisions. Played in a competitive context that encouraged placing animals on one's own half, children's arguments showed a bias that was the result of withholding known arguments. In a cooperative context, children produced not only more arguments, but also more 'two-sided' arguments. Also, seven-year-olds demonstrated a more frequent and strategic use of arguments that specifically refuted decisions that would favour their peers. The results suggest that cooperative contexts provide a more motivating context for children to produce arguments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Reasoning is a social skill that allows people to reach joint decisions. Preschoolers give reasons for their proposals in their peer conversations. By adolescence, children use sophisticated arguments (e.g., refutations and rebuttals). What the present study adds? Cooperation offers a more motivating context for children's argument production. Seven-year-olds are more strategic than five-year-olds in their reasoning with peers. Children's reasoning with others becomes more sophisticated after preschool years.

Effect of a PBL teaching method on learning about nursing care for patients with depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is a worldwide public health problem that requires the attention of qualified health professionals. The training of skilled nurses is a challenge for nursing instructors due to the complexity of this pathology.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to analyse the declarative and argumentative knowledge acquired about depression by students receiving traditional expository instruction versus students receiving problem-based learning instruction.

METHODS

Quasi-experimental study with pre-test and post-test design in experimental and control group to measure differences in the improvement of declarative and argumentative knowledge. Non parametric tests were used to compare the scores between the experimental group and the control group, and between the pre-test and post-test in each group. 114 students participated in the study. Implementation of the study took place during the 2014-2015 academic year in the third year of the Nursing undergraduate degree courses in the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) as part of the Mental Health Nursing subject.

RESULTS

The data indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the two methodologies in regard to declarative knowledge in the care of patients with depression. Nevertheless, the argumentative capacity of the experimental group improved significantly with the problem-based learning methodology (p=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the implementation indicated that problem-based learning was a satisfactory tool for the acquisition of argumentative capacity in depression nursing care. Still, working examples of teaching sequences that bridge the gap between general clinical practice and classroom practice remain an important goal for continuing research in nursing education.

Peer Groups as a Context for School Misconduct: The Moderating Role of Group Interactional Style

Peer group interactional style was examined as a moderator of the relation between peer group school misconduct and group members' school misconduct. Participants were 705 students (M_age  = 11.59 years, SD = 1.37) in 148 peer groups. Children reported on their school misconduct in fall and spring. In the winter, group members were observed in a limited-resource task and a group conversation task, and negative and positive group interactional styles were assessed. Multilevel modeling indicated that membership in groups that were higher on school misconduct predicted greater school misconduct only when the groups were high on negative or low on positive interactional style. Results suggest that negative laughter and a coercive interactional style may intensify group effects on children's misconduct.

Better to Agree or Disagree? The Role of Critical Questioning and Elaboration in Argumentative Discourse

Ist Zustimmung oder Dissens besser? Die Rolle des Kritischen Hinterfragens und Elaborierens im Argumentativen Diskurs

Zusammenfassung. Beim Umgang mit wissenschaftsbezogenen Informationen im Internet spielt der argumentative Austausch mit anderen eine immer zentralere Rolle. Als besonders förderlich für den Wissenserwerb durch argumentativen Diskurs haben sich das kritische Hinterfragen und Elaborieren der Information des Partners erwiesen. In der vorliegenden Studie wurde untersucht, wie diese lernförderlichen Kommunikationsaktivitäten im argumentativen Diskurs über wissenschaftsbezogene Informationen gefördert werden können. In einem 1 × 2 Zwischengruppendesign wurde entweder ein Unterschieds- oder ein Gemeinsamkeitenfokus erzeugt, indem Dyaden instruiert wurden, während der Diskussion eines wissenschaftsbezogenen Themas insbesondere auf Unterschiede oder auf Gemeinsamkeiten in den Sichtweisen und Argumenten zu achten. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass ein Fokus auf Unterschiede sich förderlich auf die Qualität des argumentativen Diskurses sowie auf das individuelle kritische Denken auswirkte. Die intrinsische Motivation hinsichtlich der Zusammenarbeit mit dem Partner und der Aufgaben war hingegen bei einem Gemeinsamkeitenfokus höher. Implikationen für die Verbesserung der Qualität argumentativer Diskurse und die Förderung des individuellen kritischen Denkens werden diskutiert.

Identifying General Cognitive Abilities Involved in Argument Comprehension and Evaluation

Das Verständnis und die Evaluation von Argumenten: Zur Rolle allgemeiner kognitiver Fähigkeiten

Zusammenfassung. Personen, denen die notwendigen Fähigkeiten für die korrekte Bewertung von Argumenten fehlen, ziehen ein Leben lang daraus Nachteile. Forschungsbefunde zeigen, dass einfache Tutorien für viele Studierende (ca. 30 %) keinen Nutzen bringen. Wir berichten Daten zur Frage, wie sich durch allgemeine Fähigkeiten (z. B. Vokabelwissen, Leseverständnis, analytisches Schlussfolgern) das Erlernen der Argumentevaluation vorhersagen lässt. In Studie 1 konnte gezeigt werden, dass – obwohl alle drei kognitiven Fähigkeiten einige Aspekte von Argumentverständnis und Evaluationsfähigkeit vorhersagen – das Vokabelwissen sowohl die Argumentationsfähigkeit und nicht durch das Wissen um die Bedeutung einer spezifischen Aussage, die in der Aufgabe gestellt wurde, erklärt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen auf, dass der gezielte Einsatz von Vokabelwissen und allgemeiner lexikalischer Qualität diesen Studierenden, die nicht von einem einfachen Tutorium profitieren, helfen könnte.

How Dialogic Settings Influence Evidence Use in Adolescent Students

Welchen Einfluss haben dialogische Lernsituationen auf den Gebrauch von Evidenz bei adoleszenten Schülerinnen und Schülern?

Zusammenfassung. Diese Studie untersucht wie sich argumentativer Diskurs und individuelles Argumentieren in Bezug auf den Gebrauch von Evidenz unterscheiden. In einem 1 × 2 Cross-over Design diskutierten 37 Mittelstufenschülerinnen und –Schüler ein gesellschaftliches Thema mit ihrem Partner, entweder bevor oder nachdem sie einen kurzen Aufsatz zu ihrer eigenen Meinung verfassten. Als Hintergrundinformationen erhielten sie eine Sammlung qualitativ unterschiedlicher Evidenzen zu dem Themenbereich. Die Dialoge und Aufsätze wurden untersucht in Hinblick auf a) die Art der Evidenz und b) auf welche Weise diese genutzt wurde. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich die Schülerinnen und Schüler in den Aufsätzen häufiger auf die ihnen gemeinsam vorliegenden Evidenzen beziehen (geteilte Evidenz). In den Dialogen nutzen sie Evidenz hingegen häufiger, um den gegenteiligen Standpunkt zu adressieren und zeigen dabei eine klarere Argumentationslinie. Die Ergebnisse weisen auf eine höhere Effizienz der Dialoge im Vergleich zum individuellen Schreiben hin. Gleichzeitig gibt die Studie erste Hinweise für die Gestaltung von Curricula, die Schülerinnen und Schüler dazu anregen Evidenz in ihrer Argumentation einzusetzen.

The effectiveness of argumentation in tutorial dialogues with an Intelligent Tutoring System for genetic risk of breast cancer

BRCA Gist is an Intelligent Tutoring System that helps women understand issues related to genetic testing and breast cancer risk. In two laboratory experiments and a field experiment with community and web-based samples, an avatar asked 120 participants to produce arguments for and against genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Two raters assessed the number of argumentation elements (claim, reason, backing, etc.) found in response to prompts soliciting arguments for and against genetic testing for breast cancer risk (IRR=.85). When asked to argue for genetic testing, 53.3 % failed to meet the minimum operational definition of making an argument, a claim supported by one or more reasons. When asked to argue against genetic testing, 59.3 % failed to do so. Of those who failed to generate arguments most simply listed disconnected reasons. However, participants who provided arguments against testing (40.7 %) performed significantly higher on a posttest of declarative knowledge. In each study we found positive correlations between the quality of arguments against genetic testing (i.e., number of argumentation elements) and genetic risk categorization scores. Although most interactions did not contain two or more argument elements, when more elements of arguments were included in the argument against genetic testing interaction, participants had greater learning outcomes. Apparently, many participants lack skills in making coherent arguments. These results suggest an association between argumentation ability (knowing how to make complex arguments) and subsequent learning. Better education in developing arguments may be necessary for people to learn from generating arguments within Intelligent Tutoring Systems and other settings.

Ensino de estratégias de escrita para a composição do texto argumentativo

Apresenta-se um estudo na área de ensino de estratégias para a composição escrita de textos  argumentativos, de carácter quase experimental, com metodologia de pré, pós-teste e teste de manutenção e grupos experimental e de controlo; esta investigação teve como objetivo verificar a eficácia de dois métodos distintos de ensino de estratégias destinadas a promover a argumentação escrita dos alunos do 9.º ano de escolaridade. Assim, foi desenvolvido um programa instrucional, com duas partes. A primeira, comum aos dois grupos, o experimental e o de controlo, consistia no ensino de estratégias de escrita destinadas a planificar e estruturar o texto argumentativo, associadas a estratégias de autorregulação, de acordo com os princípios pedagógicos do Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSR). Na segunda parte, o programa foi diferenciado em função do grupo. Enquanto os alunos do grupo de controlo planificaram e redigiram individualmente, os alunos do grupo de tratamento planificaram no contexto coletivo do jigsaw, tendo, em seguida, redigido individualmente o texto argumentativo. Como hipótese de investigação sugere-se que as estratégias colaborativas aplicadas na fase de planificação do texto argumentativo, tal como foram ensinadas, treinadas e seguidas pelos alunos do grupo experimental, favorecem a composição escrita desta tipologia textual. E isto devido às características intrínsecas da argumentação, as quais pressupõem que dois interlocutores ajustem continuamente as razões justificativas da sua posição aos argumentos do seu oponente, com o intuito de convencê-lo da plausibilidade da mesma. Neste sentido,  na fase anterior à redação, os alunos do grupo experimental organizados em pequenos grupos discutiram sobre o tema proposto, focando-o de várias perspectivas, e promovendo desta forma a geração de argumentos, os quais foram posteriormente incorporados no texto argumentativo. Prevê-se que os resultados do pós-teste obtidos pelos alunos do grupo de tratamento apresentem uma melhoria, estatisticamente significativa, quanto ao número e variedade de argumentos e de contra-argumentos, em comparação com os resultados alcançados pelos alunos do grupo de controlo no mesmo momento de avaliação. Este estudo decorreu, durante 12 sessões no ano letivo de 2014-15 em três escolas do ensino básico do concelho de Coimbra e foi levado a cabo pelas professoras de Português, em contexto de sala de aula. No grupo experimental, os 121 alunos, de seis turmas de duas escolas, foram instruídos por três professoras, enquanto as seis turmas do grupo de controlo, com um total de 109 alunos, foram ensinadas por quatro professoras. As professoras participaram numa ação formativa que acompanhou a implementação do programa instrucional em sala de aula. Encontrando-se a decorrer a fase de apuramento de resultados, conta-se poder apresentá-los no congresso.

Characterizing Behavioral and Brain Changes Associated with Practicing Reasoning Skills

We have reported previously that intensive preparation for a standardized test that taxes reasoning leads to changes in structural and functional connectivity within the frontoparietal network. Here, we investigated whether reasoning instruction transfers to improvement on unpracticed tests of reasoning, and whether these improvements are associated with changes in neural recruitment during reasoning task performance. We found behavioral evidence for transfer to a transitive inference task, but no evidence for transfer to a rule generation task. Across both tasks, we observed reduced lateral prefrontal activation in the trained group relative to the control group, consistent with other studies of practice-related changes in brain activation. In the transitive inference task, we observed enhanced suppression of task-negative, or default-mode, regions, consistent with work suggesting that better cognitive skills are associated with more efficient switching between networks. In the rule generation task, we found a pattern consistent with a training-related shift in the balance between phonological and visuospatial processing. Broadly, we discuss general methodological considerations related to the analysis and interpretation of training-related changes in brain activation. In summary, we present preliminary evidence for changes in brain activation associated with practice of high-level cognitive skills.

Knowledge generation in online forums: a case study in the German educational domain

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to get a first approximation of the usefulness of online forums with regard to information seeking and knowledge generation.

Design/methodology/approach

– This study captures the characteristics of knowledge generation by examining the pragmatics and types of information needs of posted questions and by investigating knowledge related characteristics of discussion posts as well as the success of communication. Three online forums were examined. The data set consists of 55 threads, containing 533 posts which were categorized manually by two researchers.

Findings

– Results show that questioners often ask for personal estimations. Information needs often aim for actionable insights or uncertainty reduction. With regard to answers, factual information is the dominant content type and has the highest knowledge value as it is the strongest predictor with regard to the generation of new knowledge. Opinions are also relevant, but in a rather subsequent and complementary way. Emotional aspects are scarcely observed. Overall, results indicate that knowledge creation predominantly follows a socio-cultural paradigm of knowledge exchange.

Research limitations/implications

– Although the investigation captures important aspects of knowledge building processes, the measurement of the forums’ knowledge value is still rather limited. Success is only partly measurable with the current scheme. The central coding category “new topical knowledge” is only of nominal value and therefore not able to compare different kinds of knowledge gains in the course of discussion.

Originality/value

– The investigation reaches out beyond studies that do not consider that the role and relevance of posts is dependent on the state of the discussion. Furthermore, the paper integrates two perspectives of knowledge value: the success of the questioner with regard to the expressed information need and the knowledge building value for communicants and readers.

A Prospective Cognition Analysis of Scientific Thinking and the Implications for Teaching and Learning Science

With increased focus on the importance of teaching and learning in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, both educational researchers and cognitive psychologists have been tackling the issues of how best to teach science concepts and scientific thinking skills. As a cultural activity, the practice of science by professional scientists is inherently prospective. Recent calls to make science education more “authentic” necessitate an analysis of the prospective, cumulative, and collaborative nature of science learning and science teaching. We analyze scientific thinking through the lens of prospective cognition by focusing on the anticipatory, social, situated, and multiscale aspects of engaging in science. We then address some of the implications for science education that result from our analysis.

Understanding clicker discussions: student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues

Previous research has shown that undergraduate science students learn from peer discussions of in-class clicker questions. However, the features that characterize such discussions are largely unknown, as are the instructional factors that may lead students into productive discussions. To explore these questions, we recorded and transcribed 83 discussions among groups of students discussing 34 different clicker questions in an upper-level developmental biology class. Discussion transcripts were analyzed for features such as making claims, questioning, and explaining reasoning. In addition, transcripts were categorized by the quality of reasoning students used and for performance features, such as percent correct on initial vote, percent correct on revote, and normalized learning change. We found that the majority of student discussions included exchanges of reasoning that used evidence and that many such exchanges resulted in students achieving the correct answer. Students also had discussions in which ideas were exchanged, but the correct answer not achieved. Importantly, instructor prompts that asked students to use reasoning resulted in significantly more discussions containing reasoning connected to evidence than without such prompts. Overall, these results suggest that these upper-level biology students readily employ reasoning in their discussions and are positively influenced by instructor cues.

Generic Versus Context-Specific Prompts for Supporting Self-Regulation in Mathematical Problem Solving Among Students With Low or High Prior Knowledge

We compared how 61 seventh graders, with low or high prior knowledge in mathematics, capitalized on two self-regulated learning approaches—generic versus context specific—to (a) enhance self-regulated learning, (b) foster procedural knowledge of routine algebraic tasks, and (c) transfer knowledge to novel mathematical problem solving. The generic approach was based on “IMPROVE” question prompts for comprehension, connection, strategy, and reflection modeled in a free context. The context-specific approach was based on what, when, why, and how (WWWH) question prompts directed explicitly to specific examples in a particular mathematical content area. Findings indicated no difference between the two approaches regarding short-term effects on algebraic procedural tasks; however, differential effects emerged between the two approaches on the self-regulation measure and on long-term transfer to novel tasks (near and far) among students with low or high prior knowledge. The practical and scientific significance of this study are discussed.

What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science

BACKGROUND

In view of the shortage of students majoring in science, we examined the image of physics in terms of students' implicit, automatic associations with physics.

AIMS

To describe the specific image of physics that might alienate students (difficulty, masculinity, heteronomy) and test an intervention for altering the image.

SAMPLES

In Study 1 the sample consisted of 63 school students (11th grade) and in Study 2 the sample consisted of 71 undergraduates.

METHODS

Study 1 measured participants' implicit associations between physics (relative to English) and the image dimensions of difficulty, masculinity and heteronomy, implicit attitudes towards and identification with physics using latency data (Implicit Association Test; IAT) and explicit attitudes using a questionnaire. Study 2 was an experimental treatment that required reading a text (treatment group) that emphasized the importance of discourse and creativity for science versus a school textbook for physics (control group).

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

implicit attitudes (IAT).

RESULTS

Students in Study 1 associated physics (relative to English) more easily with words referring to difficulty (than to ease), to males (than to females), to heteronomy (than to self-realization), to unpleasantness (relative to pleasant words) and to others (relative to words referring to self). The three image aspects of difficulty, masculinity and heteronomy predicted explicit attitudes. Participants in the treatment group in Study 2 showed a significant reduction of the IAT effects compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that students' negative explicit attitudes towards physics coincide with negative implicit associations about physics. An intervention addressing the alteration of implicit associations proved to be fruitful. Implications for science education are discussed.