Critical perspective taking : promoting and assessing online written argumentation for dialogic focus

Název: Critical perspective taking : promoting and assessing online written argumentation for dialogic focus
Zdrojový dokument: Studia paedagogica. 2019, roč. 24, č. 4, s. [119]-141
Rozsah
[119]-141
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
 

Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.

Abstrakt(y)
In this article, we consider the impact of classroom instruction and an online argumentation tool (AT) on students' written argumentation and 21st century skill development. Drawing on a wider study of 1:1 digital schools in Auckland, New Zealand, we examine the three-way relationship between argumentation teaching, student use of an online discussion board, and evidence of perspective taking. Longitudinal data from six elementary schools are analyzed, including 17 observations (in which the teaching focus was a nominated 21st century skill) and 253 student-written posts. Developmental profiles of student argumentation were determined using Kuhn and Crowell's (2011) taxonomy of argumentation function demonstrating potential for (1) instructional focus and (2) practice or "dosage" effects. Integrated student argumentation profiles acknowledging the benefits of other perspectives were found to co-occur with a higher focus on argumentation instruction, but without increases in students' critical reasoning. In addition to focus effects, repeated use of the AT suggests that stronger dosages positively influence student perspective integration. The implications for perspective taking and critical thinking through argumentation are discussed in relation to citizenship and resilience in 21st century digital contexts.
Note
This research was supported through national science funding from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (UOAX1412).
Reference
[1] Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2010). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201–225). New York: Guilford Press.

[2] ACARA (n.d.). Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available from https://www.acara.edu.au/home

[3] Brown, A. C. (2016). Classroom community and discourse: How argumentation emerges during a Socratic circle. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 4(1), 81–97. Retrieved from http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/160

[4] Brown, C., & Poortman, C. (Eds.). (2018). Networks for Learning: Effective collaboration for teacher, school and system improvement. New York: Routledge.

[5] Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 988–998. | DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.988

[6] Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability Informal Logic, 18(2), 165–182. | DOI 10.22329/il.v18i2.2378

[7] Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.

[8] Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., & Warwick, P. (2011). A dialogic inquiry approach to working with teachers in developing classroom dialogue. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1906–1959.

[9] Jesson, R., McNaughton, S., Rosedale, N., Zhu, T., & Cockle, V. (2018). A mixed-methods study to identify effective practices in the teaching of writing in a digital learning environment in low income schools Computers and Education, 119, 14–30. | DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.005

[10] Jesson, R., McNaughton, S., Wilson, A., Zhu, T., & Cockle, V. (2018). Improving achievement using digital pedagogy: Impact of a research practice partnership in New Zealand Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3) 183–199. | DOI 10.1080/15391523.2018.1436012

[11] Kahne J., & Bowyer, B. (2018). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3–34. | DOI 10.3102/0002831216679817

[12] Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Utriainen, J., Coiro, J., Kanniainen, L., Tolvanen, A., ... Leppänen, P. H. (2018). Reading to learn from online information: Modeling the factor structure Journal of Literacy Research, 50(3), 304–334. | DOI 10.1177/1086296X18784640

[13] Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8. | DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00302

[14] Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552. | DOI 10.1177/0956797611402512

[15] Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students' thinking and writing. Bronxville: Wessex Inc.

[16] Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and value of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26–49.

[17] Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. | DOI 10.1080/07370008.2013.830618

[18] Larrain, A., Freire, P., López , P., & Grau, V. (2019). Counter-arguing during curriculumsupported peer interaction facilitates middle-school Students' science content knowledge Cognition and Instruction, 37(4), 453–482. | DOI 10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360

[19] Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

[20] McGrew, M., Ortega, T., Breakstone, J., & Wineburg, W. (2017). The Challenge that's bigger than fake news. Civic reasoning in a social reasoning environment. American Educator, 41(3), 4–9.

[21] McNaughton, S. (1994). The reconstruction of culture. In P. van Geert & L. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (pp. 311–323). New York: Plenum.

[22] Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359–377. | DOI 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00021-7

[23] Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. | DOI 10.1080/01411920410001689689

[24] Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. | DOI 10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1

[25] National Literacy Trust. (2018). Fake news and critical literacy: The final report of the commission on fake news and the teaching of critical literacy in schools. Retrieved from: https://cdn.literacytrust.org.uk/media/documents/Fake_news_and_critical_literacy_-_final_report.pdf

[26] National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st-Century. Washington: National Academies Press.

[27] NGA (2010). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Mathematics standards. Available from: https://www.nga.org/bestpractices/

[28] Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., Guilbert, S. M., Stange, D. M., Baker, J. J., & Weber, A. C. (2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help? Science Education, 92(5), 765–798. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20266

[29] Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse Science, 328(5977), 463–466. | DOI 10.1126/science.1183944

[30] Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520. | DOI 10.3102/0034654313487606

[31] Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). Springer Publishing Company.

[32] Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.

[33] Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & NguyenJahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. | DOI 10.1080/03057640802701952

[34] Rosedale, N., McNaughton, S., Jesson, R., Zhu, T., & Oldehaver, J. (2019). Online written argumentation: Internal dialogic features and classroom instruction. In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, O. Chen, & H. Ayabe (Eds.), What it looks like: Developing diagram use competencies and predispositions to support problem solving, communication, and thinking (pp. 263–278). New York: Routledge.

[35] Saltarelli, A. J., & Roseth, C. J. (2014). Effects of synchronicity and belongingness on faceto-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 946–960. | DOI 10.1037/a0036898

[36] Song, Y., Deane, P., Graf, E. A., & van Rijn, P. W. (2013). Using argumentation learning progressions to support teaching and assessments of English language arts (R & D Connections No. 22). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

[37] Snow, C. E. (2015). 2014 Wallace Foundation distinguished lecture: Rigor and realism: Doing educational science in the real world Educational Researcher, 44(9), 460–466. | DOI 10.3102/0013189X15619166

[38] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[39] Wilkinson, I. A., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Glina, M., Drewry, R., Kim, M.-Y., & Nelson, K. (2017). Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: Changing teachers' beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms Language and Education, 31(1), 65–82. | DOI 10.1080/09500782.2016.1230129

[40] Wilkinson, I. A., & Son, E. H. (2010). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume IV (pp. 359–388). New York: Routledge.

[41] Wilson, A., & Jesson, R. (2019). T-shaped literacy skills: An emerging research-practice hypothesis for literacy instruction. Set: Research Information for Teachers Online First, 48(1). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

[42] Wagner, T. (2014). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need-and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.