Chapter

Shifts in epistemic status in argumentation and in conceptual change

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

... Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos (2018) suggested that argumentative operations and products are likely to differ depending on discursive contexts specific to pedagogical discursive practices, such as constructing and evaluating causal explanations, or making decisions, which is the one addressed in this study. This is an analytical frame conceived for research purposes, as in actual classroom settings these contexts may overlap. ...
... A distinction between contexts may be that, in decision-making, the discursive path can proceed from evidence to claims, as, for instance, in the study of Bravo-Torija and Jiménez-Aleixandre (2018); while in the evaluation of causal explanations the discussion proceeds, in many cases, from the alternative claims to the evidence supporting them (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2000). In their work about shifts in epistemic status in argumentation, Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos (2018) suggested that in the context of developing explanations and models, the focus is rather on the individual learner whereas in decision-making the focus is on the participants in a social interaction. Furthermore, while plausibility is a relevant feature in evaluating explanations and models, in decision-making the focus is on acceptability "which indicates not only the degree of feasibility of the options considered, in light of the available evidence and previous ideas, but also their accordance with personal and social values" (Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos, 2018, p. 174-175). ...
... Fourth, the findings are coherent with our previous proposal (Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos, 2018) about the differences between discursive contexts of argumentation, in particular about the focus on acceptability in decision-making contexts, which is different from plausibility in the evaluation of causal explanations. For instance, while in arguments about potential explanations for the yellow color of farm chickens (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2000), the students evaluate if it is plausible that the cause is heredity or eating yellow feed, in this study the debate is about the acceptability of VDs, particularly for its social implementation. ...
Article
Full-text available
Argumentative discourse has a complexity that is not entirely captured by purely structural analyses. In arguments about socio-scientific issues (SSI), a range of dimensions, besides scientific knowledge, including values, ethical concerns, cultural habits, or emotions, are mobilized. The relationship between argumentation and emotions is now drawing attention of researchers. Our focus is on the dynamic interactions among emotions and scientific evidence. We draw from Plantin, who proposed that emotions are mobilized as argumentative resources alongside knowledge. The goal of our study is to examine in which ways emotional tension frames the construction of arguments about vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets (ODs) with a group of four preservice teachers. The results suggest that the interactions between the group emotional tension and the evaluation of evidence drive a change toward a decision that would be emotionally acceptable for all participants. Participants attended to the epistemic dimension, weighing evidence, and values about the choices, but the emotional framing took priority. We suggest that the analysis of this emotive framing may be a fruitful approach for sophisticated studies of argumentation beyond structural issues.
... In this work, we concentrate on a human evaluation of the plausibility of synthetic dialogues considering also the quality of the supporting features. As also reported by other scholars (Walton 2001;Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos 2018), plausibility should be evaluated considering several factors, including (i) evidence, the presence of relevant, reliable, and sufficient evidence strengthens the plausibility of an argument; (ii) reasoning, the logical coherence and soundness of the reasoning used to connect the evidence and the claim influence the plausibility, (iii) consistency, the argument should be consistent with established facts, widely accepted principles, and background knowledge, (iv) contextual factors, plausibility can be influenced by con- textual factors such as the expertise of the participants, the relevance of the argument to the topic under discussion, and the prior beliefs or biases of the audience. ...
Article
Full-text available
Conversational recommender systems aim at recommending the most relevant information for users based on textual or spoken dialogues, through which users can communicate their preferences to the system more efficiently. Argumentative conversational recommender systems represent a kind of deliberation dialogue in which participants share their specific beliefs in the respective representations of the common ground, to act towards a common goal. The goal of such systems is to present appropriate supporting arguments to their recommendations to show the interlocutor that a specific item corresponds to their manifested interests. Here, we present a cross-disciplinary argumentation-based conversational recommender model based on cognitive pragmatics. We also present a dialogue simulator to investigate the quality of the theoretical background. We produced a set of synthetic dialogues based on a computational model implementing the linguistic theory and we collected human evaluations about the plausibility and efficiency of these dialogues. Our results show that the synthetic dialogues obtain high scores concerning their naturalness and the selection of the supporting arguments.
... In these contexts, argumentative interactions have the potential to modify the epistemic statuses associated with the alternative options (that is, their acceptability for each participant), in terms of their consistency with other conceptions and values (individually or socially accepted), their consistency with evidence, or their potential to successfully address several dimensions of the dilemma and achieve something that is considered of value. We further explore the differences between the shifting of epistemic statuses in the context of scientific explanations and socio-scientific decision-making in another study (Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Argumentation is a social practice that can lead to epistemic outcomes, that is, to the construction of knowledge. Recent research in collaborative learning has pointed out the significance of affective and motivational aspects, as well as the influence of socio-relational concerns, which have been found to frequently take priority over epistemic ones. Our research objective is to investigate how the epistemic and socio-relational dimensions of students' argumentative interactions are intertwined. We apply discourse analysis to examine the interactions in a small group of four 11th-graders evaluating the nutritional acceptability of omnivorous and vegetarian diets. The epistemic dimension is analyzed in terms of the aims pursued by the participants and the epistemic outcomes achieved. The socio-relational dimension is analyzed in terms of fluctuations of interpersonal tensions and their relaxations. The results show a convergence of participants' epistemic aims and the epistemic statuses of the options. Most of the epistemic outcomes are produced in sequences in which socio-cognitive tension arises and then relaxes. Enduring high socio-cognitive tension and overcoming conflict seem to have encouraged the adoption of epistemic aims. Moreover, our findings suggest that driven by epistemic aims in high socio-cognitive tensed contexts, students can refine the conditions by which they engage in argumentation. These results call for further investigating on what constitutes an appropriate or productive level of interpersonal tension for learning. Educational implications are related to the design of argumentative learning environments promoting epistemic aims and outcomes through the encouragement of suitable socio-cognitive climates leading to them.
... These disciplinary standards are the accepted guidelines by which the community justifies and evaluates knowledge, as well as the processes used to produce knowledge [3]. As a result, argumentation involves a deliberation on the epistemic status of knowledge claims [44]. For instance, in science, claims that adhere to scientific evaluative criteria (e.g., supported by evidence or fit with prior theories) are given predominant epistemic status over claims that do not meet these criteria. ...
Article
Full-text available
For high school students to develop scientific understanding and reasoning, it is essential that they engage in epistemic cognition and scientific argumentation. In the current study, we used the AIR model (i.e., Aims and values, epistemic Ideals, and Reliable processes) to examine high school students’ epistemic cognition and argumentation as evidenced in collaborative discourse in a science classroom. Specifically, we employed a qualitative case study approach to focus on four small-group discussions about scientific phenomena during the Quality Talk Science intervention (QTS), where students regularly received explicit instruction on asking authentic questions and engaging in argumentation. In total, five categories of epistemic ideals and five categories of reliable processes were identified. Students demonstrated more instances of normative epistemic ideals and argumentative responses in the discussions after they received a revised scientific model for discussion and explicit instruction on argumentation. Concomitantly, there were fewer instances of students making decisions based on process of elimination to determine a correct scientific claim. With respect to the relationship of epistemic cognition to authentic questioning and argumentation, the use of epistemic ideals seemed to be associated with the initiation of authentic questions and students’ argumentation appeared to involve the use of epistemic ideals.
Article
Full-text available
The study was designed to diagnose high school students‟ Mathematics misconceptions through a descriptive survey. The 1500 students from 50 high schools of Lahore were selected by using a two-stage cluster random sampling technique. The misconceptions two-tiered test was developed after reviewing the literature and textbooks which cover various topics of Mathematics i.e. real and complex numbers, linear equations and inequalities, algebraic expressions and formula (surds), quadratic equations, algebraic manipulation, variation (ratio), sets and functions. The data were analyzed through item wise content analysis technique. It is concluded from the results that high school students have numerous misconceptions in the content of Mathematics. Students were memorized properties and shortcuts to work with Mathematics problems. Correspondingly, they were unable to write the reasons. It is recommended from the results that textbook of Mathematics at the secondary level may be revised by experts keeping in mind that the content like LCM, HCF, sets and functions, inequality, radicals (surds), factorizations and complex numbers, etc. given in textbooks should help students to remove their misconception instead of leading to misconception.
Article
Full-text available
Human diet is almost solely considered in nutritional terms, without paying attention to its impact on the environment. This study examines how pre-service teachers and high school students perceive five dimensions of diet (nutritional, environmental, economic, ethical and cultural-personal), particularly focusing on environment. The research questions are: 1) how does their assessment of the environmental impact of diet change in the context of an argumentative teaching sequence? 2) Which data do they use and how do they use them in their arguments about the appropriateness of different diets according to environmental criteria? Their perceptions change from an initial invisibility of the environmental impact of diets to a full consideration of its relevance and an increased presence of the environment in their arguments. We suggest a need for problematizing diet and its sustainability, making its environmental impact more visible.
Article
Full-text available
This paper motivates the idea of"conceptual ecology" by critiquing the current mainstream of conceptual change research. Most research on conceptual change sulTers from too little theoretical accountability concerning the nature of the mental entities involved and too little use of the details of process data to support its theoretical view. Part of the consequences of these limitations is a vast underestimate ofthe complexity and diversity of conceptual change phenomena. In contrast, a conceptual ecology approach involves hypothesizing that conceptual change involves a large number of diverse kinds ofknowledge, organized and re-organized into complex systems. To illustrate a conceptual ecology approach, we explain two very dilTerent kinds of mental entities, p-prims and coordination classes. P­ prims arc small and n~mcrous intuitive elements that arc often quite conteX! specific in their activation. Coordination classes, by contrast, are large systems whose very existence entails a high degree of coordination across diverse contexts. We claim that both p-prims and coordination classes arc much mO{e explicit and precise in their assumptions than is typically the case, and they both survive substantial empirical test in the form ofanalysis of process data.
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter deals with two questions: firstly, what might students learn by engaging in argumentative interactions? And secondly, by what cognitive-interactive processes might they do so? An approach to understanding argumentative interactions, produced in problem-solving situations, is outlined, that sees them essentially as attempts to solve an interlocutionary problem, i.e. that of deciding which putative problem solutions to accept or not, by drawing on additional knowledge sources (termed “(counter-) arguments”) that potentially change the degrees of acceptability of solutions. This process goes hand in hand with the exploration of a dialogical space and with the negotiation of the meaning of key notions, underlying the debate. The analysis of an example of argumentative interaction (involving two adolescent students in a physics classroom) reveals this exploratory process, together with the essentially unstable nature of students’ viewpoints, given that they are engaging in argumentation with respect to ideas that are still under co-construction.
Chapter
There is a growing consensus in considering that learning science involves students’ participation in the epistemic goals of science (Duschl, 2008; Kelly, 2008) or that, as Duschl (2008) proposes, science education should balance conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals.
Book
Contributors. Preface. Introduction M. Limon, L. Mason. Part I: Theoretical Perspectives. The Processes and Challenges of Conceptual Change M.T.H. Chi, R.D. Roscoe. Why 'Conceptual Ecology' is a Good Idea A.A. diSessa. On the Nature of Naive Physics S. Vosniadou. Map Reading Versus Mind Reading: Revisiting Children's Understanding of the Shape of the Earth J. Ivarsson, et al. Understanding Conceptual Change: A Commentary R.E. Mayer. Part II: Motivational, Social and Contextual Aspects. The Role of Motivational Beliefs in Conceptual Change E.A. Linnenbrink, P.R. Pintrich. Situating the Question of Conceptual Change O. Hallden, et al. Participative Learning and Conceptual Change M. Gorodetsky, S. Keiny. Cognitive Variability in the Development of the Concept of Family: A Contextualist or a Gradualist View? M.J. Rodrigo, et al. Motivational, Social, and Contextual Aspects of Conceptual Change: A Commentary G.M. Sinatra. Part III: Domain Specificity and Learning. The Role of Students' Epistemological Knowledge in the Process of Conceptual Change in Science J. Leach, J. Lewis. Intuitive Rules: The Case of 'More A - More B' R. Stavy, et al. Conceptual Change in Mathematics: Understanding the Real Numbers K. Merenluoto, E. Lehtinen. Conceptual Change in History M. Limon. Content and Conceptual Change: A Commentary R. White. Part IV: Instructional Practices to Promote Conceptual Change in Classroom. Developing Epistemological Thinking to Foster Conceptual Change in Different Domains L. Mason. Science Learning Through Text: The Effect of Text Design and Text Comprehension Skills on Conceptual Change M. Mikkila-Erdmann. Computer-BasedInteractions for Conceptual Change in Science M. Wiser, T.G. Amin. Knowledge Assessment and Conceptual Understanding J. Alonso-Tapia. Change as a Process and a Disposition: A Commentary P. Boscolo.
Article
The conceptual change model has two major components: the conditions that need to be satisfied for a person to experience conceptual change and the person's conceptual ecology that provides the context in which the conceptual change occurs. A literature review shows that the conditions have been used to analyse interview data and to plan instruction but not to interpret interactions in the classroom. An analysts of the ways in which students can and do produce evidence of meeting conditions shows that this only happens when they are able to monitor and comment on the scientific content of their conceptions. Implications that this conclusion has for classroom teaching are considered.
Chapter
How can we support pupils' engagement in argumentation? Should argumentation be explicitly taught or rather embedded in the learning tasks? Which design principles are related to the goal of promoting argumentation in the science classroom? Are they the same as design principles for constructivist learning environments? How can research explore these features of learning environments supporting argumentation?
Epistemic cognition and philosophy: Developing a new framework for epistemic cognition
  • C A Chinn
  • R W Rinehart
Chinn, C. A., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). Epistemic cognition and philosophy: Developing a new framework for epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A.
The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: The role of purposeful observation
  • S F Monteira
  • M P Jiménez-Aleixandre
Monteira, S. F., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016). The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: The role of purposeful observation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53 (in press), DOI10.1002/tea.21259.