Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

How Dialogic Settings Influence Evidence Use in Adolescent Students

Published Online:June 15, 2016https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000171

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Diese Studie untersucht wie sich argumentativer Diskurs und individuelles Argumentieren in Bezug auf den Gebrauch von Evidenz unterscheiden. In einem 1 × 2 Cross-over Design diskutierten 37 Mittelstufenschülerinnen und –Schüler ein gesellschaftliches Thema mit ihrem Partner, entweder bevor oder nachdem sie einen kurzen Aufsatz zu ihrer eigenen Meinung verfassten. Als Hintergrundinformationen erhielten sie eine Sammlung qualitativ unterschiedlicher Evidenzen zu dem Themenbereich. Die Dialoge und Aufsätze wurden untersucht in Hinblick auf a) die Art der Evidenz und b) auf welche Weise diese genutzt wurde. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich die Schülerinnen und Schüler in den Aufsätzen häufiger auf die ihnen gemeinsam vorliegenden Evidenzen beziehen (geteilte Evidenz). In den Dialogen nutzen sie Evidenz hingegen häufiger, um den gegenteiligen Standpunkt zu adressieren und zeigen dabei eine klarere Argumentationslinie. Die Ergebnisse weisen auf eine höhere Effizienz der Dialoge im Vergleich zum individuellen Schreiben hin. Gleichzeitig gibt die Studie erste Hinweise für die Gestaltung von Curricula, die Schülerinnen und Schüler dazu anregen Evidenz in ihrer Argumentation einzusetzen.


Abstract. This study examines how evidence is used differently in argumentative discourse compared to individual arguments. Applying a 1 × 2 crossover study design, 37 secondary school students were asked either to discuss a social issue with their partner before individually writing an essay outlining their opinion or, vice versa, first to discuss and then to write. As background information, they were provided with pieces of evidence with different levels of quality. Dialogs and essays were analyzed regarding (a) the type of evidence and (b) the way evidence was used. Results showed that in their essays students referred more often to the pieces of evidence provided to them (shared evidence). In contrast, they used evidence more often to address the opposing viewpoint in dialogs by incorporating it in a more elaborated (clearer) line of reasoning. Findings suggest that dialogues are a more effective tool than individual writing production, and the study provides first hints regarding how to design curricula that will encourage students to use evidence in a more sophisticated way in their argumentation.

References

  • Aristotle. (1995). Topics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The works of Aristotle . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Asterhan, C. S. C. , & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science , 33 , 374–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Barr, D. J. , Levy, R. , Scheepers, C. , & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language , 68 , 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. , Davidson, D. J. , & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language , 59 , 390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chen, N.-S. , Wei, C.-W. , Wu, K.-T. , & Udden, L. (2009). Effect of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners' reflection levels. Computers & Education , 52 , 283–291. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.07 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Clark, D. , Sampson, V. , Weinberger, A. , & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic framework for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review , 19 , 343–374. doi: 10.1007/ s10648-007-9050-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Crowell, A. , & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development , 15 (2), 1–46. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2012.725187 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 12 (1), 91–142. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1201_4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Driver, R. , Newton, P. , & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education , 84 , 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Duschl, R. A. , & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education , 38 (1), 39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Iordanou, K. , & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction , 34 , 42–57. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Iordanou, K. , & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment. Science Education , 99 , 282–311. doi: 10.1002/sce.21152 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. , Rodriguez, A. B. , & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education , 84 , 757–792. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jucks, R. , & Paus, E. (2013). Different words for the same concept: Learning collaboratively from multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction , 31 (2), 1–28 . doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.769993 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jucks, R. , Schulte-Löbbert, P. , & Bromme, R. (2007). Supporting experts' written knowledge communication through reflective prompts on the use of specialist concepts. Journal of Psychology , 215 , 237–247. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.215.4.237 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal , 29 , 303–323, 303–323. doi: 10.3102/00028312029002303 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Koballa, T. R. (1992). Persuasion and attitude change in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 29 (1), 63–80. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290107 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education , 77 , 319–337. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher , 44 (1), 46–53. doi: 10.3102/0013189X15569530 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. , Amsel, E. , & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills . Orlando, FL: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. , & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science , 22 , 545–552. doi: 10.1177/0956797611402512 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. , Garcia-Mila, M. , Zohar, A. , Andersen, C. , White, S. H. , Klahr, D. , & Carver, S. M. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 60 (4), i. doi: 10.2307/1166059 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. , Goh, W. , Iordanou, K. , & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development , 79 , 1310–1328. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. , Hemberger, L. , & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with me . New York, NY: Wessex. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. , & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as a core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice , 1 (1), 66–78. doi: 10.1080/23735082.2015.994254. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. , & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development , 74 , 1245–1260. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00605 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review , 62 , 155–179. doi: 10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2014). Emotive language in argumentation . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Macagno, F. (2008). Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton's pragmatic theory. Informal Logic , 28 , 102–128. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Macagno, F. (2012). Reconstructing and assessing the conditions of meaningfulness: An argumentative approach to presupposition. In H. Ribeiro (Ed.), Inside arguments: Logic and the study of argumentation (pp. 247–268). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Macagno, F. , Mayweg-Paus, E. , & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in education studies: Coding and improving students' argumentative strategies. Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy . doi: 10.1007/s11245-014-9271-6. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mayweg-Paus, E. , Macagno, F. , & Kuhn, D. (2015). Developing argumentation strategies in electronic dialogs: Is modeling effective? Discourse Processes . doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1040323 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 , 793–823. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McNeill, K. L. , Lizotte, D. J. , Krajcik, J. , & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 15 , 153–191. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nussbaum, E. M. , & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 20 , 443–488. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Osborne, J. F. , Erduran, S. , Simon, S. , & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review , 82 (301), 63–70. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pollock, J. L. (1974). Knowledge and justification . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • 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. doi: 10.3102/0034654313487606 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003, July). The inquiry paradox: Why doing science doesn’t necessarily change ideas about science. In Proceedings of the sixth international computer-based learning in science conference (pp. 825–834). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sandoval, W. , & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction , 23 (1), 23–55. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stadtler, M. , & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning , 2 , 191–210. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thiebach, M. , Mayweg-Paus, E. , & Jucks, R. (2016). Better to agree or disagree? - The role of critical questioning and elaboration in argumentative discourse. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie , 30 (2–3), 133–149. First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100037220 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation , 3 , 169–184. doi: 10.1007/bf00128147 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Walton, D. N. & Macagno, F. (2007). The fallaciousness of threats: Character and ad baculum. Argumentation , 21 (1), 63–81. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar