Conference Paper

Dyadic argumentation of elementary school children with a reflective tool

Authors:
If you want to read the PDF, try requesting it from the authors.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
At mealtimes, the evaluation of the appropriate (or not appropriate) behaviour concerning the food is often assumed as a topic of discourse. The aim of this study is to single out the argumentative strategies used by parents with their children and by children with their parents in order to convince the other party to eat or not to eat a certain food. Within a data corpus constituted by 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families, we selected a corpus of 77 argumentative discussions between parents and children arisen around a food-related issue. Data are presented through discursive excerpts of argumentative discussions that were found within the data corpus and analysed through the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion. The results of this study show that the feeding practices in families with young children during mealtimes are argumentatively co-constructed by participants. In most cases parents put forward arguments based on the quality (e.g., very good, nutritious, salty, or not good) and quantity (e.g., too little, quite enough, or too much) of food to convince their children to eat. Similarly, children put forward arguments based on the quality and quantity of food to convince their parents to change their standpoint, although their view on the issue is the opposite of that of their parents.
Article
Full-text available
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Article
Full-text available
There has been much interest in using software tools to scaffold learners in complex tasks, that is, to provide supports that enable students to deal with more complex content and skill demands than they could otherwise handle. Many different approaches to scaffolding techniques have been presented in a broad range of software tools. I argue that two complementary mechanisms can explain how a diversity of scaffolding approaches in software act to support learners. Software tools can help structure the learning task, guiding learners through key components and supporting their planning and performance. In addition, tools can shape students' performance and understanding of the task in terms of key disciplinary content and strategies and thus problematize this important content. Although making the task more difficult in the short term, by forcing learners to engage with this complexity, such scaffolded tools make this work more productive opportunities for learning. I present arguments for these mechanisms in terms of the obstacles learners face, and I present several brief examples to illustrate their use in design guidelines. Finally, I examine how the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing are sometimes complementary and sometimes in tension in design, discuss design tradeoffs in developing scaffolded investigation tools for learners, and consider the reliance of scaffolding on a classroom system of supports.
Article
Full-text available
Three- to 7-year-olds' ability to calculate with whole-number, fraction, and mixed-number amounts was tested using a nonverbal task in which an amount was displayed and then hidden (J. Huttenlocher, N. C. Jordan, & S. C. Levine, 1994). Next, an amount was added to or subtracted from the hidden amount. The child's task was to determine the hidden amount that resulted from the transformation. Although fraction problems were more difficult than whole-number problems, competence on all problem types emerged in the early childhood period. Furthermore, there were striking parallels between the development of whole-number and fraction calculation. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that early representations of quantity promote learning about whole numbers but interfere with learning about fractions (e.g., R. Gelman, 1991; K. Wynn, 1995, 1997).
Article
Full-text available
Argumentive reasoning skills are featured in the new K-12 Common Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), yet with little said about their nature or how to instill them. Distinguishing reasoning skills from writing skills, we report on a multiyear intervention that used electronically conducted dialogues on social issues as the medium to develop argumentive reasoning skills in two cohorts of young adolescents. Intervention groups demonstrated transfer of the dialogic activity to two individual essays on new topics; argument quality for these groups exceeded that of comparison groups who participated in an intervention involving the more face-valid activity of extensive essay writing practice, along with whole-class discussion. The intervention group also demonstrated greater awareness of the relevance of evidence to argument. The dialogic method thus appears to be a viable one for developing cognitive skills that the comparison-group data show do not routinely develop during this age period.
Article
Full-text available
This work sought to obtain experimental evidence to corroborate cross-sectional patterns of development in argument skills and to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to foster development of these skills in academically at-risk 13- to 14-year-olds. Students participated in 16 sessions of a collaborative, goal-based activity providing dense exercise of argumentive thinking. One condition included peer dialogues; another did not. The former was the more effective, although both groups progressed. Participants showed increased frequency of usage of powerful argumentive discourse strategies, such as counterargument, and decreased frequency of less effective strategies. Quality of individual arguments (for or against a claim) also improved, supporting the existence of a close relation between these two kinds of argument skills.
Chapter
Using data from two studies of scientific reasoning, this chapter explores whether transactive discussion is the basis of productive peer collaborations and questions what role the partner plays in the apparent effectiveness of this type of discussion. In the first study, dyads who engaged in transactive discussion showed more improvement than dyads who did not have transactive discussions. In the second study, both dyads and children working alone showed improvement related to talk in general. However, dyads produced more transactive types of talk and showed a more complex understanding of the problem that they generated more quickly. Having a partner was not a necessary or sufficient condition for producing transactive talk but increased likelihood that it would occur. The data from these studies suggest that the value of peer collaborations may be that the presence of a partner provides a natural context for elaborating one’s own reasoning.
Article
Educational research has traditionally considered measurable familial resources in terms of economic and cultural capital, e.g. socioeconomic background (SES), as important predictors of children's school and linguistic attainment. Going beyond this agenda, the present article aims to make a contribution by investigating interactive resources, e.g. parental communicative practices, which are assumed to have a relevant influence on children's argumentative competences at the beginning of secondary schooling (grade 5). Two cases from the FAcTS project1 that deviate from the usual SES-achievement connection are analyzed using a plurality of methods: based on a concept of global discourse competence, the results of an assessment of two persuasive texts are linked to the micro analytic reconstruction of linguistic patterns in domestic parent–child interactions of an oral argumentative nature. The study combines information from questionnaire data with qualitative analysis and discusses the explanatory power of the different familial resources for children's argumentative performance.
Article
Observational studies suggest that children as young as 2 years can evaluate some of the arguments people offer them. However, experimental studies of sensitivity to different arguments have not yet targeted children younger than 5 years. The current study aimed at bridging this gap by testing the ability of preschoolers (3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) to weight arguments. To do so, it focused on a common type of fallacy—circularity—to which 5-year-olds are sensitive. The current experiment asked children—and, as a group control, adults—to choose between the contradictory opinions of two speakers. In the first task, participants of all age groups favored an opinion supported by a strong argument over an opinion supported by a circular argument. In the second task, 4- and 5-year-olds, but not 3-year-olds or adults, favored the opinion supported by a circular argument over an unsupported opinion. We suggest that the results of these tasks in 3- to 5-year-olds are best interpreted as resulting from the combination of two mechanisms: (a) basic skills of argument evaluations that process the content of arguments, allowing children as young as 3 years to favor non-circular arguments over circular arguments, and (b) a heuristic that leads older children (4- and 5-year-olds) to give some weight to circular arguments, possibly by interpreting these arguments as a cue to speaker dominance.
Article
Science includes more than just concepts and facts, but also encompasses scientific ways of thinking and reasoning. Students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence the knowledge they bring to the classroom, which impacts their degree of comfort with scientific practices. Consequently, the goal of this study was to investigate 5th grade students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence across three contexts—what scientists do, what happens in science classrooms, and what happens in everyday life. The study also focused on how students' abilities to engage in one practice, argumentation, changed over the school year. Multiple data sources were analyzed: pre- and post-student interviews, videotapes of classroom instruction, and student writing. The results from the beginning of the school year suggest that students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence, varied across the three contexts with students most likely to respond “I don't know” when talking about their science classroom. Students had resources to draw from both in their everyday knowledge and knowledge of scientists, but were unclear how to use those resources in their science classroom. Students' understandings of explanation, argument, and evidence for scientists and for science class changed over the course of the school year, while their everyday meanings remained more constant. This suggests that instruction can support students in developing stronger understanding of these scientific practices, while still maintaining distinct understandings for their everyday lives. Finally, the students wrote stronger scientific arguments by the end of the school year in terms of the structure of an argument, though the accuracy, appropriateness, and sufficiency of the arguments varied depending on the specific learning or assessment task. This indicates that elementary students are able to write scientific arguments, yet they need support to apply this practice to new and more complex contexts and content areas. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 793–823, 2011
Article
Students often face process losses when learning together via text-based online environments. Computer-supported collaboration scripts can scaffold collaborative learning processes by distributing roles and activities and thus facilitate acquisition of domain-specific as well as domain-general knowledge, such as knowledge on argumentation. Possibly, individual learners would require less additional support or could equally benefit from computer-supported scripts. In this study with a 2 × 2-factorial design (N = 36) we investigate the effects of a script (with versus without) and the learning arrangement (individual versus collaborative) on how learners distribute content-based roles to accomplish the task and argumentatively elaborate the learning material within groups to acquire domain-specific and argumentative knowledge, in the context of a case-based online environment in an Educational Psychology higher education course. A large multivariate interaction effect of the two factors on learning outcomes could be found, indicating that collaborative learning outperforms individual learning regarding both of these knowledge types if it is structured by a script. In the unstructured form, however, collaborative learning is not superior to individual learning in relation to either knowledge type. We thus conclude that collaborative online learners can benefit greatly from scripts reducing process losses and specifying roles and activities within online groups.
Article
Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is often based on written argumentative discourse of learners, who discuss their perspectives on a problem with the goal to acquire knowledge. Lately, CSCL research focuses on the facilitation of specific processes of argumentative knowledge construction, e.g., with computer-supported collaboration scripts. In order to refine process-oriented instructional support, such as scripts, we need to measure the influence of scripts on specific processes of argumentative knowledge construction. In this article, we propose a multi-dimensional approach to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in CSCL from sampling and segmentation of the discourse corpora to the analysis of four process dimensions (participation, epistemic, argumentative, social mode).
Article
The ability to evaluate the quality of explanations is an essential part of children's intellectual growth. Explanations can be faulty in structural ways such as when they are circular. A circular explanation reiterates the question as if it were an explanation rather than providing any new information. Two experiments (N=77) examined children's preferences when faced with circular and noncircular explanations. The results demonstrate that a preference for noncircular explanations is present, albeit in a fragile form, by 5 or 6 years of age and that it appears robustly by 10 years of age. Thus, the ability to evaluate the quality of explanations based on structural grounds appears to develop rapidly during the elementary school years.