Exploring teacher contributions to student argumentation quality

Název: Exploring teacher contributions to student argumentation quality
Autor: Oyler, Joe
Zdrojový dokument: Studia paedagogica. 2019, roč. 24, č. 4, s. [173]-198
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Článek
Licence: Neurčená licence
The purpose of this study was to improve our understanding of how experienced teachers contribute to student argumentation quality during classroom inquiry dialogue. Analysis of discussion transcripts, teacher interviews, and shared review of discussion video identified a set of seven teacher moves used by three experienced teachers in support of student argumentation. Analysis further suggested the moves were enlisted to serve two primary purposes – to clarify the process and the product of the inquiry dialogue.
[1] Adler, M., Rougle, E., Kaiser, E., & Caughlan, S. (2003). Closing the gap between concept and practice: Toward more dialogic discussion in the language arts classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(4), 312–322.

[2] Alvermann, D. E., & Hayes, D. A. (1989). Classroom discussion of content area reading assignments: An intervention study. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(3), 305–335. | DOI 10.2307/747772

[3] Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.

[4] Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. | DOI 10.3102/00028312040003685

[5] Arnett, K., & Turnbull, M. (2008). Teacher beliefs in second and foreign language teaching: A state of the art review. In H.J. Sisken (Ed.), From thought to action: Exploring beliefs and outcomes in the foreign language program (pp. 9–29). Boston: Thomson Heinle.

[6] Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639. | DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626

[7] Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25(2), 243–272. | DOI 10.1093/applin/25.2.243

[8] Borg, S. (1998). Teachers' pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9–38. | DOI 10.2307/3587900

[9] Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers' beliefs. System, 39(3), 370-380. | DOI 10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009

[10] Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001) Making sense of language teaching: Teachers' principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 22(4), 470–501. | DOI 10.1093/applin/22.4.470

[11] Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

[12] Commeyras, M., & DeGroff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals' perspectives on professional development and pedagogy: A United States Survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(4), 434–472. | DOI 10.1598/RRQ.33.4.5

[13] Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. New York: Dover Publications.

[14] Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Li, Y., & Kim, I. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 400–424. | DOI 10.1598/RRQ.43.4.5

[15] Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. | DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

[16] Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March 28-31). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Boston, United States. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453050.pdf

[17] Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20012

[18] Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32. | DOI 10.3102/0091732X030001001

[19] Frijters, S., ten Dam, G., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). Effects of dialogic learning on valueloaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 66–82. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.001

[20] García-Moriyón, F., Rebollo, I., & Colom, R. (2004). Evaluating philosophy for children: A meta-analysis. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(4), 14–22.

[21] Gillies, R., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2012). The effects of two strategic and meta-cognitive questioning approaches on children's explanatory behavior, problem-solving and learning during cooperative, inquiry-based science. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93–106. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.02.003

[22] Glaser, G., & Strauss, A. (2008). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

[23] Green, L., Condy, J., & Chigona, A. (2012). Developing the language of thinking within a classroom community of inquiry: Pre-service teacher's experiences. South African Journal of Education, 32(3), 319–330. | DOI 10.15700/saje.v32n3a583

[24] Gregory, M. (2007). A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Teaching Philosophy, 30(1), 59–84. | DOI 10.5840/teachphil200730141

[25] Gregory, M. (2009). Ethics education and the practice of wisdom. Teaching Ethics, 9(2), 105–130. | DOI 10.5840/tej2009929

[26] Gregory, M., & Laverty, M. J. (2009). Philosophy and education for wisdom. In A. Kenkmann (Ed.), Teaching philosophy (pp. 155–173). London: Continuum International.

[27] Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. | DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449

[28] Harutounian-Gordon, S. (2009). Learning to teach through discussion: The art of turning the soul. New Haven: Yale University Press.

[29] Isikoglu, N., Basturk, R., & Karaca, F. (2009). Assessing in-service teachers' instructional beliefs about student-centered education: A Turkish perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 350–356. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.004

[30] Jadallah, M., Miller, B. W., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Zhang, J., Archodido, A., & Grabow, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning about a science and public policy issue. In M. McKowen & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life: Essays in honor of Isabel L. Beck (pp. 170–193). New York Guilford Press.

[31] Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. | DOI 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F

[32] Juzwik, M. M., Sherry, M. B., Caughlan, S., Heintz, A., & Borsheim-Black, C. (2012). Supporting dialogically organized instruction in an English teacher preparation program: Video-based, web 2.0-mediated response and revision pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1–42.

[33] Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. | DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6

[34] Kelly, G., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871. | DOI 10.1080/0950069980200707

[35] Kennedy, D. (2004). The philosopher as teacher: The role of a facilitator in a community of philosophical inquiry. Metaphilosophy, 35(5), 744–765. | DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9973.2004.00348.x

[36] Kennedy, D. (2013). Developing philosophical facilitation: A toolbox of philosophical moves. In S. Goering, N. Shudak, & T. Wartenberg (Eds.), Philosophy in schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers (pp. 110–118). New York: Routledge.

[37] Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The discursive practice of participation in an elementary classroom community. Instructional Science, 33(3), 213–250. | DOI 10.1007/s11251-005-2810-1

[38] Kovalainen, M., Kumpulainen, K., & Vasama, S. (2001). Orchestrating classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 17–28.

[39] 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

[40] Kyle, J. A. (1983). Thinking in writing. Analytic Teaching, 4(1), 5–9.

[41] Kyle, J. A. (1987). Not a success story: Why P4C did not 'take' with gifted students in a summer school setting. Analytic Teaching, 7(2), 11–16.

[42] Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. M. (1978). Growing up with philosophy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

[43] Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

[44] Lipman, M. (1981). Philosophy for children. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: Programs for teaching thinking (pp. 35–38). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curricular Development.

[45] Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

[46] Mayer, S. J. (2012). Classroom discourse and democracy: Making meanings together. New York: Peter Lang.

[47] Mead, G. H. (1962). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[48] Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111. | DOI 10.1080/0141192990250107

[49] Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A socio-cultural approach. London: Routledge.

[50] Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[51] 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 & Education, 27(4), 283–297. | DOI 10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1

[52] Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764. | DOI 10.1037/a0015576

[53] Nielsen, J. A. (2011). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393. | DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x

[54] Niklasson, J., Ohlsson, R., & Ringborg, M. (1996). Evaluating philosophy for children. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 12(4), 17–23.

[55] Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395. | DOI 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3

[56] Nussbaum, M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106. | DOI 10.1080/00461520.2011.558816

[57] Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.

[58] Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.

[59] Oyler, J. (2015). Expert teacher contributions to argumentation quality during inquiry dialogue (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/78/

[60] Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. | DOI 10.3102/00346543062003307

[61] Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

[62] Peirce, C. S. (1955). The fixation of belief. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 7–31). New York: Dover Publications.

[63] Reed, S. K. (1993). A schema-based theory of transfer. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 39–67). Norwood: Ablex.

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

[65] Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 319–334). New York: Guilford.

[66] Reznitskaya, A. (2004). Empirical research in philosophy for children: Limitations and new directions. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(4), 4–13.

[67] Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 289–306. | DOI 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.003

[68] Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., & Oyler, J. (2011). Dialogic inquiry tool. Montclair: The Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.

[69] Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133. | DOI 10.1080/00461520.2013.775898

[70] Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

[71] Schreier, M. (2013) Qualitative Content Analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

[72] Scott, P. S., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20131

[73] Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[74] Sharp, A. M. (1987). Pedagogical practice and philosophy: The case for ethical inquiry. Analytic Teaching, 7(2), 4–7.

[75] Soter, A., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372–391. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001

[76] Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community of inquiry. Melbourne: ACER.

[77] Splitter, L. J., & Sharp, A. M. (1996). The practice of philosophy in the classroom. In R. F. Reed & A. M. Sharp (Eds.), Studies in philosophy for children: Pixie (pp. 285–314). Madrid: Ediciones De La Torre.

[78] Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Schools should nurture wisdom. In B. Z. Presseisen (Ed.), Teaching for intelligence (pp. 55–82). Arlington Heights: Skylight Training and Publishing.

[79] Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[80] Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1979). The use of schemata in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 82–106. | DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(79)90005-7

[81] Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[82] Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2004). Philosophy for children: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 19(3), 365–380. | DOI 10.1080/0267152042000248016

[83] Vygotsky, L. S. (1968). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[84] Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher-order mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk: Sharpe.

[85] Waggoner, M., Chinn, C. A., Yi, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Collaborative reasoning about stories. Language Arts, 72(8), 582–589.

[86] Walton, D.N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation 3(2), 169–184. | DOI 10.1007/BF00128147

[87] Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

[88] Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 244–274. | DOI 10.1159/000106414

[89] Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311. | DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301