Content uploaded by Mark K. Felton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark K. Felton on Oct 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents' persuasive writing
... Diversas investigaciones han coincidido en señalar que uno de los principales problemas en la argumentación escrita es el sesgo de la postura propia (Ferretti y Fan, 2017;Ferretti et al., 2000;Ferretti et al., 2009;Felton y Herko, 2004;Kuhn et al., 2016;Leitão y Almeida, 2000;Nussbaum y Kardash, 2005). El sesgo de la postura propia es la tendencia del individuo a ignorar o excluir la perspectiva contraria (Felton y Herko, 2004). ...
... Diversas investigaciones han coincidido en señalar que uno de los principales problemas en la argumentación escrita es el sesgo de la postura propia (Ferretti y Fan, 2017;Ferretti et al., 2000;Ferretti et al., 2009;Felton y Herko, 2004;Kuhn et al., 2016;Leitão y Almeida, 2000;Nussbaum y Kardash, 2005). El sesgo de la postura propia es la tendencia del individuo a ignorar o excluir la perspectiva contraria (Felton y Herko, 2004). Si la naturaleza de la argumentación es dialógica y su función central es la resolución de las diferencias, privilegiar solo la perspectiva propia y no considerar la contraevidencia se alejaría de la razonabilidad (Ferretti y Fan, 2017). ...
... Una primera explicación a esta dificultad parece ser la transición entre lo oral y lo escrito (Leitão y Almeida, 2000;Felton y Herko, 2004). Pese a que la argumentación oral y escrita siguen patrones similares, la argumentación oral surge desde edades tempranas y se complejiza en un proceso escrito (Golder y Coirier, 1994;Muller Mirza et al., 2009). ...
La capacidad de argumentar sobre temas controversiales es crucial para construir una sociedad democrática. Cada persona tiene puntos de vista propios y, para llegar a acuerdos, es importante que las personas desarrollen habilidades como asumir una postura propia, justificar sus puntos de vista, contraargumentar, negociar, con el fin de alcanzar una convivencia social. Además, la argumentación desarrolla el pensamiento crítico, ya que promueve procesos metacognitivos que contribuyen a la construcción de nuevos conocimientos. A pesar de su relevancia educativa, poco se sabe sobre el desempeño de los estudiantes peruanos en términos de sus capacidades. Por lo tanto, resulta pertinente analizar el desarrollo de las habilidades de argumentación escrita en estos estudiantes, considerando las variables socioeducativas que puedan predecir su desempeño. Para ello, se analizaron 444 textos argumentativos elaborados por estudiantes de segundo grado año de educación secundario, que participaron en la Evaluación Muestral implementada por el Ministerio de Educación. Los resultados han mostrado que, en el proceso de justificación de argumentos, la mayoría de los estudiantes adoptó una posición clara y coherente sobre un tema en controversia (88 %), y la justificaron con al menos dos razones principales (69.5 %) estableciendo una conexión lógica entre razones y postura (68 %). Sin embargo, 52 % de los estudiantes presentó limitaciones para producir justificaciones que sustentaran la razón principal, pues no lograron desarrollarla mediante razones subordinadas. Otro resultado del estudio revela la dificultad en los estudiantes para establecer una estructura argumentativa dialógica que anticipe contraargumentos o incluya posiciones contrarias, pues sólo el 16 % desarrolló esta tarea. Además, se concluye que la variable socioeconómica predice el rendimiento en escritura argumentativa.
... As noted, the counterargument was the move most used by students (Leitão, 2000), which is a key semiotic move for knowledge revision and metacognitive development. The high frequency of counterargument in this study contradicts others, which, focusing mostly on written argumentation, show that counterarguments and rebuttals rarely occur (Felton & Herko, 2004). ...
... Como se ha señalado, el contraargumento fue el movimiento más utilizado por los/las estudiantes (Leitão, 2000), que es un movimiento semiótico clave para la revisión del conocimiento y el desarrollo metacognitivo. La alta frecuencia del contraargumento en este estudio contradice otros, que, focalizados mayoritariamente en la argumentación escrita, muestran que los contraargumentos y las refutaciones ocurren con poca frecuencia (Felton & Herko, 2004). ...
A central task of universities is for students to learn highly specialized disciplinary knowledge. The literature shows that argumentation is one potential way to achieve this. The problem is that in higher education, there is little development of this literature. Instead, we find active teaching methodologies. Although these methodologies provide a pedagogical structure for learning, they do not necessarily highlight the role of argumentative language in higher education students as a key component for learning. We lack knowledge about how university students engage in discussions while implementing problem-based learning (PBL; one of these widely used methodologies). This qualitative study addresses this knowledge gap by describing the argumentative moves used, what is argued, and how 37 first-year psychology students argue. The most frequent moves used by students were counterargument, partnership environment, explanation by analogy, uncertainty language, deliberative goal, partial agreement, and anticipation. A microgenetic examination of four cases describes the relationship between argumentation in PBL and knowledge construction. The contribution of these findings to the pedagogical design of university teaching is discussed.
... As noted, the counterargument was the move most used by students (Leitão, 2000), which is a key semiotic move for knowledge revision and metacognitive development. The high frequency of counterargument in this study contradicts others, which, focusing mostly on written argumentation, show that counterarguments and rebuttals rarely occur (Felton & Herko, 2004). ...
... Como se ha señalado, el contraargumento fue el movimiento más utilizado por los/las estudiantes (Leitão, 2000), que es un movimiento semiótico clave para la revisión del conocimiento y el desarrollo metacognitivo. La alta frecuencia del contraargumento en este estudio contradice otros, que, focalizados mayoritariamente en la argumentación escrita, muestran que los contraargumentos y las refutaciones ocurren con poca frecuencia (Felton & Herko, 2004). ...
A central task of universities is for students to learn highly specialized disciplinary knowledge. The literature shows that argumentation is one potential way to achieve this. The problem is that in higher education, there is little development of this literature. Instead, we find active teaching methodologies. Although these methodologies provide a pedagogical structure for learning, they do not necessarily highlight the role of argumentative language in higher education students as a key component for learning. We lack knowledge about how university students engage in discussions while implementing problem-based learning (PBL; one of these widely used methodologies). This qualitative study addresses this knowledge gap by describing the argumentative moves used, what is argued, and how 37 first-year psychology students argue. The most frequent moves used by students were counterargument, partnership environment, explanation by analogy, uncertainty language, deliberative goal, partial agreement, and anticipation. A microgenetic examination of four cases describes the relationship between argumentation in PBL and knowledge construction. The contribution of these findings to the pedagogical design of university teaching is discussed. Resumen: Una tarea central de las universidades es que los/las estudiantes aprendan conocimiento disciplinar altamente especializado. La literatura muestra que argumentar es una vía con potencialidad para ello. El problema es que en educación superior hay poco desarrollo de esta literatura, en su lugar encontramos las metodologías de enseñanza activa. Estas metodologías, aunque plantea una estructura pedagógica para el aprendizaje, no visibilizan necesariamente el rol del lenguaje argumentativo en estudiantes de Educación Superior como un componente clave para el aprendizaje. De hecho, desconocemos cómo estudiantes universitarios discuten durante la aplicación del Aprendizaje Basado en Problema (ABP; una de estas metodologías ampliamente utilizadas). Este estudio cualitativo aborda este vacío de conocimiento, describiendo qué movimientos argumentativos usan, qué argumentan y cómo argumentan 37 estudiantes de primer año de Psicología. Movimientos más frecuentes utilizados por los/las estudiantes fueron contraargumento, ambiente de compañerismo, explicación mediante analogía, lenguaje de incertidumbre, meta deliberativa, acuerdo parcial y anticipación. Al mismo tiempo, a través de un análisis microgenético con
... also calls upon cognitive and metacognitive skills particular to written argumentation such as goal setting on the topic and task level (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987;Felton & Herko, 2004;Galbraith, 1999), and the acquisition and application of knowledge of the structure of discourse and its components (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987;Flower et al., 1986). It also involves the recall and reconstitution of domain-specific knowledge and the evaluation of the validity of arguments and counterarguments (Limon, 2001), as well as a self-evaluation of both process and learning goals (Flower et al., 1986) and the capacity to engage in and self-regulate metacognitive reflection (Felton & Herko, 2004;Karoly, 1993;Limon, 2001). ...
... also calls upon cognitive and metacognitive skills particular to written argumentation such as goal setting on the topic and task level (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987;Felton & Herko, 2004;Galbraith, 1999), and the acquisition and application of knowledge of the structure of discourse and its components (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987;Flower et al., 1986). It also involves the recall and reconstitution of domain-specific knowledge and the evaluation of the validity of arguments and counterarguments (Limon, 2001), as well as a self-evaluation of both process and learning goals (Flower et al., 1986) and the capacity to engage in and self-regulate metacognitive reflection (Felton & Herko, 2004;Karoly, 1993;Limon, 2001). It offers the opportunity to consider multiple perspectives and to confront, reason and resolve contradictions that arise so as to expand and deepen knowledge and enable changes in conceptual understanding (Andriessen, 2006;Kuhn, 2001;Leitão, 2000;Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). ...
Digital tools for argumentative writing aimed, from early on, to support the use of argumentation to develop knowledge about the topic being argued. Many products were initially created to serve research purposes, and few developed in the last thirty years have made it to the educational technology market for use by instructors and writers. Others are reserved for institutional use or have become obsolete. More recently, research in argumentative writing has moved away from digital platform development specifically aimed at argumentative writing, to simpler generic diagramming and collaboration tools to be integrated in learning activities. Development has focused more on analytic approaches to generating representations of writing (processes and products), while research has shifted towards strategy instruction and related design principles. A selection of differing environments developed to support argumentative writing will be presented to highlight the evolution and the gaps in digital tools for written argumentation.
... We examine whether engagement in dialogic argumentive reasoning supports integration of multiple source perspectives in argumentive reasoning. Although there is empirical evidence showing that engagement in dialogic argumentation can support the development of two-sided reasoning, that is, taking into consideration opposing views on a topic (Felton & Herko, 2004;Kuhn & Crowell, 2011), to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence showing whether engagement in dialogic reasoning can support integration of source perspectives. The latter refers to the identification of text authors' particular perspective on an issue when reading a text and incorporation of different authors' perspectives in argumentive writing, after reading multiple texts on a particular topic. ...
We report a study examining, for the first time, the effectiveness of engagement in dialogic argumentation in relation to its ability to promote integration of multiple source perspectives in an argumentive writing task after reading controversial multiple texts. Sixty-four primary school students engaged in a dialog-based intervention aiming to support them to learn to argue. Participants’ argument skills have been improved and transferred to a writing task completed after reading novel multiple texts on new, non-intervention, topics. In particular, the experimental group participants showed gains in their ability to integrate multiple source perspectives in an argumentive writing task after reading controversial multiple texts, compared with a control group which engaged in business-as-usual school curriculum. Microgenetic data revealed a progressive development of experimental participants’ integration skill throughout their engagement in the argumentive discourse activity. The findings have important educational implications. They show that learning to argue by engaging in dialogic argumentation is a promising pathway for supporting the ability to integrate multiple source perspectives after reading controversial multiple texts.
... The second dimension is multiple perspectives which investigates whether students were able to consider and evaluate different perspectives/viewpoints of an SSI. Being able to examine multiple perspectives is an important argumentation skill that can improve the credibility of an argument (Felton & Herko, 2004). In addition, as SSI are normally controversial issues with multiple perspectives, this dimension can also examine students' SSI literacy. ...
Background
This study examined the effect of computer‐supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) on secondary school students' understanding of socio‐scientific issues (SSI). Engaging students in collaborative argumentation is known to help with deepening their understanding of SSI.
Methods
In this study, a mixed‐method design is used to investigate 84 students' collaborative argumentation processes and outcomes. The statistical analysis, epistemic network analysis and qualitative uptake analysis results showed that CSCA was effective in supporting secondary school students' evidence‐based argumentation skills on SSI.
Findings and Conclusion
Several cases were presented to show how students engaged in CSCA to explore meaningful learning opportunities and how CSCA helped students' learning on SSI.
Implications
The findings provided insights for future innovative teaching and learning SSI in authentic classroom settings.
AI in Society provides an interdisciplinary corpus for understanding artificial intelligence (AI) as a global phenomenon that transcends geographical and disciplinary boundaries. Edited by a consortium of experts hailing from diverse academic traditions and regions, the 11 edited and curated sections provide a holistic view of AI’s societal impact. Critically, the work goes beyond the often Eurocentric or U.S.-centric perspectives that dominate the discourse, offering nuanced analyses that encompass the implications of AI for a range of regions of the world. Taken together, the sections of this work seek to move beyond the state of the art in three specific respects. First, they venture decisively beyond existing research efforts to develop a comprehensive account and framework for the rapidly growing importance of AI in virtually all sectors of society. Going beyond a mere mapping exercise, the curated sections assess opportunities, critically discuss risks, and offer solutions to the manifold challenges AI harbors in various societal contexts, from individual labor to global business, law and governance, and interpersonal relationships. Second, the work tackles specific societal and regulatory challenges triggered by the advent of AI and, more specifically, large generative AI models and foundation models, such as ChatGPT or GPT-4, which have so far received limited attention in the literature, particularly in monographs or edited volumes. Third, the novelty of the project is underscored by its decidedly interdisciplinary perspective: each section, whether covering Conflict; Culture, Art, and Knowledge Work; Relationships; or Personhood—among others—will draw on various strands of knowledge and research, crossing disciplinary boundaries and uniting perspectives most appropriate for the context at hand.
The object of this research was to provide an explicit test of the hypothesis that engagement in thinking about a topic enhances the quality of reasoning about that topic. Engagement took the form of a series of dyadic discussions of the topic of capital punishment. At both age levels examined--early adolescence and young adulthood-this dyadic interaction significantly enhanced quality of reasoning, relative to a more minimal, single-occasion dyadic engagement or a control condition limited to repeated elicitation of the participant's own opinions and arguments. The range of different arguments increased from pretest to posttest, suggesting a process of social transmission of new knowledge. In addition, however, 10 different types of qualitative improvement in the form of reasoning appeared in both age groups. Primary among them were a shift from 1 -sided to 2-sided arguments, arguments based within a framework of alternatives, and metacognitive awareness of coexistence of multiple views. Process analysis of the dialogues provided evidence of a variety of different forms of interaction contributing to change.
This study was designed to determine (a) whether the writing of persuasive discourse can be improved by instruction and (b) the effect of reading on writing and of writing on reading within the mode of persuasion. Students in two sixth-grade classes in each of two schools ( n = 110) were stratified by sex and ability and randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: 1. instruction in a model for persuasion plus writing practice; 2. instruction in a model for persuasion plus reading practice; 3. reading novels and writing book reports plus a single lesson in the persuasion model; 4. reading novels and writing book reports (control group). Instruction was given for ten 45-minute lessons over five weeks. Pretests and posttests each consisted of writing a recall protocol of a persuasive text and writing two persuasive compositions. On the posttest, both the writing and the reading groups (groups 1 and 2) scored significantly higher than the control group on writing quality, on the organization of compositions, on the number of conclusions and text markers used, and on the degree of elaboration of reasons. There were no differences between the control group and other groups on reading recall scores.
Children come to school with an idea of narrative structure, but their knowledge of persuasive writing is less developed. Results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate that students perform poorly on persuasive writing tasks. To what extent this is a result of a lack of logical thinking skills and to what extent it is a result of problems with instruction are not known. The present experiment was designed to identify the effects of instruction, grade level, and sex on students’ persuasive writing. Children in grades 4, 6, and 8 were instructed in writing with one of four instructional strategies. Their performance was then evaluated through analytic scoring of their efforts with standard writing prompts administered immediately after treatment and again 2 weeks later. The results showed that older children wrote better than younger ones; that girls wrote better than boys immediately after the study but not 2 weeks later; and that treatment effects approached statistical significance.
The purpose of this study was threefold: (a) to investigate the effectiveness of four instructional strategies on student argumentative writing at the 10th- and 12th-grade levels; (b) to describe the differences among student writing at the two grade levels based on essays obtained at three different times; and (c) to determine how various qualities within the essays influenced the raters' decisions with holistic scoring. The results of the study indicate that there were no significant differences in the effectiveness of the four instructional strategies, which included instruction with model pieces of writing; with scales, questions, and criteria to guide writing; with models and scales/questions/criteria; and with free-writing activities. The results further indicate that the scoring of 10th and 12th graders' writing was not significantly different when using either a holistic scoring guide or Toulmin's (1958) model of argument. Both 10th and 12th graders, however, used significantly more argumentative traits (warrants and data) for one writing sample than for the other two samples. Results of a forward stepwise multiple-regression analysis indicated that approximately 30% to 45% of the variance of the holistic scores for the three writing samples was accounted for by the following variables—claims and data (for all three writing samples), opposition (for two writing samples), and warrant (for one writing sample). Overall, relatively few students included opposition or response to the opposition in their essays at either grade level. Their use of data and warrants was probably influenced by their knowledge about the topic. Findings of this study suggest that 10th and 12th graders' use of different components of an argument is relatively stable and differences may depend upon the amount of prior knowledge that the students have about the topic.
This study investigated differences among student writers at three grade levels (6, 8, and 10) and between expert writers and students in terms of the uses and complexity of arguments presented in their persuasive texts. To analyze argument, a model was developed that could account for structural variations occurring across a range of writing situations. The characteristics of this model were defined using categories derived from a model of semantic representation in discourse. The structural analysis revealed that (a) argument was the predominant organizational structure for all writers, (b) more than 80% of students produced arguments involving some form of opposition, (c) embedded arguments identified in expert texts functioned primarily as countered rebuttals and in student texts as subclaims or reservations, and (d) expert texts contained relatively higher frequencies of warrants, countered rebuttals, and modals, and student uses of these substructures increased with grade.
Previous research has documented age‐related developments in the differentiation and abstractness of the system of interpersonal constructs employed in perceiving persons and the relationship of such developments to qualitative changes in persuasive strategies. This study extended the analysis of the interrelations among these developments within a broad age range. In addition to other findings, the quality of persuasive strategies was demonstrated to be strongly related to developments in differententiation in early childhood and to abstractness in later childhood and adolescence.
A coding system was developed for the classification of persuasive requests and their support in terms of the level of perspective-taking ability implied in the strategy. Responses of children in grades 2 through 9 to 3 hypothetical, but common, persuasive communication situations were coded within the system. In addition to using a greater total number and a greater variety of strategies, older children used strategies reflecting progressively more advanced modes of perspective taking. Consistent with related developmental research in the social cognitive domain, the major developmental advance occurred between second and third graders, third and fourth graders, and eighth and ninth graders.
In Study 1, instruction was used with students in Grades 4 and 6 to investigate effects of availability of explicit versus implicit knowledge of discourse structure. Providing labels for the structural components of opinion essays permitted the expression of implicit knowledge, but instruction in analyzing the structural function of text contents was required before discourse structure knowledge yielded more mature performance (including identifying text contents by function, addressing contrary sides of arguments, and avoiding nonfunctional digressions). As predicted, instruction led neither to superior recall of structural plans for own texts nor to higher ratings of text quality. Study 2 replicated with Grade 6, and extended to Grade 10 and adults, the portions of Study 1 that dealt with recall of structural plans. Accuracy of recall increased significantly with grade. Study 2 additionally used thinking-aloud-during-recall tasks to identify mature and immature uses of structural representations. As predicted from models of mature and immature composing strategies, adult protocols showed structural representations mediated through gist, intention, and language. For younger students representations were primarily non-mediated, and those mediations that did occur showed the primary link with structure to be language rather than intentions or gist.
Social interaction provides a social support system, particularly for the acquisition of procedural knowledge. If learning is mainly a social process, what is learned is mainly a process of behaving. Innovative learning settings, called discussions, were used in this research to provide a cognitive apprenticeship in scholarly ways of arguing and reasoning. Children can learn to direct these discussions, a kind of collective discourse based on more general conversational skills that are already found in preschool settings, toward the scientific way of knowing when functional features of social interaction are mediated through a symbolic system of scientific tools. In this study, discursive data were analyzed, taken from six small group discussions by fourth graders about historical documents concerning Germanic people. The use of different procedures is identified within frames, which am characterized by a dominant cognitive-linguistic activity, and sequences as argumentative contexts in which epistemic actions are carried out. Epistemic operations linked to historical strategies are autonomously activated by the children, who are practicing historical thinking. These operations and strategies are built into an argumentative flow of reasoning that is governed by complex justification structures.