The role of the teacher in supporting students' epistemic thinking in dialogic argumentation : a case study

Title: The role of the teacher in supporting students' epistemic thinking in dialogic argumentation : a case study
Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2019, vol. 24, iss. 4, pp. [143]-171
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Article
License: Not specified license
The purpose of this qualitative research paper was to explore the role of a teacher in supporting students' epistemic understanding and argumentation. The main subject of our research was expert teacher Daniela, who had been teaching Czech language arts for twelve years and undertook a developmental program on dialogic teaching three years prior to this study. Data were gathered through structured observations, six video recordings of teaching, and several interviews with the teacher and students. The findings showed that the teacher tried to depersonalise students' arguments and sought to make the argument jointly owned by everybody in the classroom so that it was possible to discuss the nature of the argument and not the student's personal opinion. The findings reveal that the depersonalisation is a unique procedure that could increase students' participation in dialogic argumentation while preserving their personal opinions.
  • This article is an output of the project On the Relationship Between Characteristics of Classroom Discourse and Student Achievement (GA17-03643S), funded by the Czech Science Foundation.
[1] Alexander, R. J. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge. Berlin.

[2] Alexander, R.J. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.

[3] Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. | DOI 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458

[4] Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering Personal Epistemology as Metacognition: A Multifaceted Approach to the Analysis of Epistemic Thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35. | DOI 10.1080/00461520.2013.863265

[5] Bendixen, L. D. (2002). A process model of epistemic belief change. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 191–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[6] Bendixen, L. D., Schraw, G., & Dunkle, M. E. (1998). Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132(2), 187–200. | DOI 10.1080/00223989809599158

[7] Bendixen, L.D. & Feucht, F. C. (2010). (Eds.). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[8] Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191–216. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20420

[9] Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 907–941. | DOI 10.3102/00028312039004905

[10] Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 7–26. | DOI 10.1007/s11409-009-9053-5

[11] Bruner, J. (1978) The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella & W. J. Levell (Eds). The child's conception of language, (pp. 241–256). New York: Springer-Verlag.

[12] Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy: A Review of Argument Interventions in K-12 Science Contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. | DOI 10.3102/0034654310376953

[13] Chinn, C. A., O'donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97. | DOI 10.1080/00220970009600650

[14] Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp and J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[15] Cohen, D.K. (1990). A Revolution in One Classroom: The Case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329. | DOI 10.3102/01623737012003311

[16] Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

[17] Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14(4), 359–379. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.01.005

[18] Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. | DOI 10.1080/03057260208560187

[19] Felton, M., 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, 417–446. | DOI 10.22329/il.v29i4.2907

[20] Felton, M., 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, 372–386. | DOI 10.1111/bjep.12078

[21] Feucht, F. C. (2011). The epistemic underpinnings of Mrs. M's reading lesson on drawing conclusions: a classroom-based research study. In J. Lunn Brownlee, G. Schraw, & D. Berthelsen (Eds.), Personal epistemology and teacher education (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Routledge.

[22] Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. New York: Routledge.

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

[24] Gronostay, D. (2018). 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. Unterrichtswiss, 6, 1–19.

[25] Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.

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

[27] Hofer, B. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 129–163. | DOI 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.002

[28] Hofer, B. K., and Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 88–140. | DOI 10.3102/00346543067001088

[29] Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[30] Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259–286). Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press.

[31] Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[32] Kuhn, D. (2009). Adolescent thinking. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Individual bases of adolescent development (p. 152–186). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

[33] Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20395

[34] Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. | DOI 10.1080/13546780600625447

[35] Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[36] Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328. | DOI 10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7

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

[38] Kuhn, T. (1968). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[39] Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[40] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[41] Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.

[42] Leitão, S. (2000). The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360. | DOI 10.1159/000022695

[43] Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children's construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 411–414. | DOI 10.1080/0951839960090404

[44] Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007

[45] Mason, L., Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understandingand interest in interpreting a controversyand in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128. | DOI 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.001

[46] Matusov, E. (2011). Authorial teaching and learning. In E. J. White &M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe (pp. 21–46). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

[47] Matusov, E., von Duyke, K., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Mapping Concepts of Agency in Educational Contexts. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(3), 420–446. | DOI 10.1007/s12124-015-9336-0

[48] McNeill, K.L., Pimentel, D.S. & Strauss, E.G. (2013). The Impact of High School Science Teachers' Beliefs, Curricular Enactments and Experience on Student Learning During an Inquiry-based Urban Ecology Curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2608–2644. | DOI 10.1080/09500693.2011.618193

[49] Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reason well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178. | DOI 10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1

[50] Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

[51] Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 173–190. | DOI 10.1080/00461520701416306

[52] Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domainspecificity in personal epistemology research: philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–54. | DOI 10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6

[53] Muis, Krista R., Duffy, Melisa C. (2013). Epistemic Climate and Epistemic Change: Instruction Designed to Change Students' Beliefs and Learning Strategies and Improve Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 213–225. | DOI 10.1037/a0029690

[54] Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of'triadic dialogue'?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied linguistics, 21(3), 376–406. | DOI 10.1093/applin/21.3.376

[55] Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. | DOI 10.1080/095006999290570

[56] Nokes, J. D. (2014). Elementary Students' Roles and Epistemic Stances During DocumentBased History Lessons. Theory & Research in Social Education, 42(3), 375–413. | DOI 10.1080/00933104.2014.937546

[57] Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947–968. | DOI 10.1002/tea.3660310909

[58] Nussbaum, E.M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: the role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573–595. | DOI 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00062-0

[59] Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue. Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

[60] Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

[61] 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, 83,483–520.

[62] Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archoudidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175. Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., &

[63] NguyenJahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge journal of education, 39(1), 29–48. | DOI 10.1080/03057640802701952

[64] Sadler, T., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20165

[65] Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. | DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498

[66] Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411. | DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.406

[67] Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 37–40. | DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.37

[68] Schwarz, R. (2005). Using facilitative skills in different roles. In R. Schwarz & A. Davidson (Eds.), The skilled facilitator fieldbook: Tips, tools, and tested methods for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches (pp. 27–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[69] Sedlacek, M., & Sedova, K. (2017). How many are talking? The role of collectivity in dialogic teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 99–108. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.001

[70] Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 278–290. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.018

[71] Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., & Svaricek, R. (2016). Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 14–25. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005

[72] 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. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217

[73] Sedova, K., Svaricek, R., Sedlacek, M., & Salamounova, Z. (2016). Jak se učitelé učí: Cestou profesního rozvoje k dialogickému vyučování. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

[74] Sfard, A. (2016). Ritual for ritual, exploration for exploration or What the learners get is what you get from them in return. In J. Adler & A. Sfard (Eds.), Research for educational change: Transforming researchers' insights into improvement in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 53–75). London: Routledge.

[75] Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students'argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903–927. | DOI 10.1080/09500690010016076

[76] Snell, J. (2011). Interrogating video data: Systematic quantitative analysis versus microethnographic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 253–258. | DOI 10.1080/13645579.2011.563624

[77] Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430–456. | DOI 10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5

[78] Svaricek, R., & Sedova, K. (2012). Feedback in educational communication in Czech secondary schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(3), 239–261.

[79] Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[80] van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[81] Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.

[82] von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20213

[83] Vygotsky, L. (1970). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[84] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

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

[86] Walton, D. N. (2008). Informal logic: a pragmatic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[87] Walton, D. N., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[88] Walton, D., Macagno, F. (2016). A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argument & Computation, 6(3), 219–245. | DOI 10.1080/19462166.2015.1123772

[89] Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning (Vol. 7). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

[90] Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the Classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428. | DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3

[91] Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015). Dialogue-intensive pedagogies for promoting reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 37–50). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

[92] Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-toface teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 131–147. | DOI 10.1177/016502547800100203

[93] Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

[94] Zohar, A., & David, A. Ben. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82. | doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4

[95] Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. | DOI 10.1002/tea.10008