Are classroom discussions on controversial political issues in civic education lessons cognitively challenging? : a closer look at discussions with assigned positions

Title: Are classroom discussions on controversial political issues in civic education lessons cognitively challenging? : a closer look at discussions with assigned positions
Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2019, vol. 24, iss. 4, pp. [85]-100
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Article
License: Not specified license
Discussing controversial political issues in class provides rich opportunities for cognitively activating learning processes, i.e. in-depth processing of learning content and higher-order thinking processes. However, relating the features of a given argumentative design to specific learning outcomes is a tricky endeavor, as this theoretical paper aims to illustrate through the example of a discussion with assigned positions (for/against) in civic education classes. The potential of such discussion settings for cognitive activation was examined by considering the features of the overall argumentative design, task configurations, and learning activities. More concretely, it is argued that controversial discussions with assigned positions constitute three different task configurations depending on the relationship between a student's personal and assigned positions. Based on the ICAP framework (Chi & Wylie, 2014) for cognitive engagement, the paper further shows that students may take part in various modes of learning activities within a single instructional setting (although to different degrees). These findings point to the need to develop "more local" (Mandl & Renkl, 1992) or "middle-range" theories (Mutz, 2008) of learning through argumentation.
[1] Alivernini, F., & Manganelli, S. (2011). Is there a relationship between openness in classroom discussion and students' knowledge in civic and citizenship education? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3441–3445.

[2] Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

[3] Blaskó, Z., da Costa, P. D., & Vera-Toscano, E. (2019). Non-cognitive civic outcomes: How can education contribute? European evidence from the ICCS 2016 study. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 366–378.

[4] Brophy, J. (2000). Teaching. Educational practices series 1. Geneva: International Bureau of Education.

[5] Budesheim, T. L., & Lundquist, A. R. (1999). Consider the opposite: Opening minds through in-class debates on course-related controversies. Teaching of Psychology, 26(2), 106–110. | DOI 10.1207/s15328023top2602_5

[6] Campbell, D. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior 30(4), 437–454. | DOI 10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z

[7] Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. | DOI 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

[8] Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework. Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. | DOI 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

[9] Davis, J. H., Stasson, M., Ono, K., & Zimmerman, S. (1988). Effects of straw polls on group decision-making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 918–926. | DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.918

[10] Detjen, J., Massing, P., Richter, D., & Weißeno, G. (2012). Politikkompetenz – Ein Modell. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

[11] Felton, M. K., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417–446. | DOI 10.22329/il.v29i4.2907

[12] Felton, M. K., Garcia-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372–386. | DOI 10.1111/bjep.12078

[13] Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[14] Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion. Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874. | DOI 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.x

[15] Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2008). Classroom climate indicators and attitudes towards foreigners. Journal of Adolescence 31(5), 609–624. | DOI 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.10.006

[16] Gronostay, D. (2016). Argument, counterargument, and integration? Patterns of argument reappraisal in controversial classroom discussions. Journal of Social Science Education, 15(2), 42–56.

[17] Gronostay, D. (2019a). To argue or not to argue? The role of personality traits, argumentativeness, epistemological beliefs and assigned positions for students' participation in controversial political classroom discussions. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 47(1), 117–135. | DOI 10.1007/s42010-018-00033-4

[18] Gronostay, D. (2019b). "Dafür argumentieren, obwohl ich selbst dagegen bin?" – Effekte zugewiesener Diskussionspositionen auf die Beteiligung und die persönliche Position der Schüler/innen. In M. Lotz & K. Pohl (Eds.), Gesellschaft im Wandel. Neue Aufgaben für die politische Bildung und ihre Didaktik (pp. 159–168). Schwalbach: Wochenschau.

[19] Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom. The democratic power of discussion. New York: Routledge.

[20] Hess, D., & Posselt, J. (2002). How high school students experience and learn from the discussion of controversial public issues. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 17(4), 283–314.

[21] Johnson, D. W. (2015). Constructive controversy. Theory, research, practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[22] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51. | DOI 10.3102/0013189X08330540

[23] Kuhn, D., & Lao, J. (1998). Contemplation and conceptual change. Integrating perspectives from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review, 18(2), 125–154. | DOI 10.1006/drev.1997.0449

[24] Lilly, E. L. (2012). Assigned positions for in-class debates influence student opinions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 1–5.

[25] Lipowsky, F. (2015). Unterricht. In E. Wild & J. Möller (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 69–106). Berlin: Springer.

[26] Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., & Klieme, E. (2007). Gleicher Unterricht – gleiche Chancen für alle? Die Verteilung von Schülerbeiträgen im Klassenunterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35(2), 125–147.

[27] Mandl, H., & Renkl, A. (1992). A plea for "more local” theories of cooperative learning. Learning and Instruction, 2(3), 281–285. | DOI 10.1016/0959-4752(92)90014-D

[28] Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 346–374. | DOI 10.1002/jee.20021

[29] 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

[30] Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 521–538. | DOI 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070308

[31] Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602–662. | DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602

[32] Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. | DOI 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

[33] Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception. Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. | DOI 10.1002/sce.3730660207

[34] Praetorius, A., Klieme, E., Herbert, B., & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM Mathematics Education 50(3), 407–426. | DOI 10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4

[35] Rapanta, C., & Christodoulou, A. (in press). Walton's types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.

[36] Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

[37] Reinhardt, S. (2015). Teaching civics. A manual for secondary education teachers. Leverkusen: Budrich.

[38] Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (2018). Accountable talk: Instructional dialogue that builds the mind. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

[39] Salminen, T., & Marttunen, M. (2018). Defending either a personal or an assigned standpoint. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(1), 72–100. | DOI 10.1075/jaic.17015.sal

[40] Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., Svaricek, R., Majcik, M., Navratilova, J., Drexlerova, A., Kychler, J., & Salamounova, Z. (2019). Do those who talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 63, 1–11. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217

[41] Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries. Amsterdam: IEA.

[42] Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2016). Arguing against confirmation bias. The effect of argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 167–179. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.009

[43] Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher's role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551. | DOI 10.3102/0034654308320292