Analysis of different categories of epistemic and metacognitive discourse in argumentation

Title: Analysis of different categories of epistemic and metacognitive discourse in argumentation
Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2019, vol. 24, iss. 4, pp. [101]-118
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Article
License: Not specified license

Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.

Argumentative practices have been shown to deepen understanding and improve academic performance. After 10 years of work with science curricula designed to develop reasoning, we present a framework grounded in data from our projects for identifying different forms of metacognitive engagement in science inquiry classes. We focus on four categories of discourse from our data: object of thought or discourse; expressions of what someone is thinking; degree of specificity; and discourse applying and tailoring understanding of epistemic cognition to particular topics. We present multiple examples in each of these categories. Our goal is to provide analytic tools along with examples to better identify and code argumentative discourse that advances students' apt epistemic performance.
[1] Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20432

[2] Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[3] Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389. | DOI 10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968

[4] Barzilai, S., & Ka'adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193–232. | DOI 10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

[5] Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85. | DOI 10.1080/07370008.2011.636495

[6] 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

[7] Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–506. | DOI 10.1002/1098-237X(200007)84:4<486::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-U

[8] Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, (pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[9] Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. | DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

[10] Hefter, M. H., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., Fries, S., & Berthold, K. (2015). Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values Learning and Instruction, 39(5), 11–22. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.002

[11] Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students' knowledge about the nature of science Science Education, 84(1), 51–70. | DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<51::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-H

[12] Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (Under Review). Disagreeing about how to know: The instructional value of explorations into knowing. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Educational Psychologist.

[13] 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 & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 425-453). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[14] Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[15] Kuhn, D., & Dean Jr., D. (2010). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 268–273. | DOI 10.1207/s15430421tip4304_4

[16] Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. | DOI 10.1002/tea.10034

[17] Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–5). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

[18] Perelman, C. H., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2000). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

[19] 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

[20] Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20065

[21] Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205. | DOI 10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1

[22] Sosa, E. (2015). Judgment and agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[23] Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

[24] Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. | DOI 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

[25] Walton, D. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence. Cham: Springer.