Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment

The aim of this study was to examine how students used evidence in argumentation while they engaged in argumentive and reflective activities in the context of a designed learning environment. A web-based learning environment, SOCRATES, was developed, which included a rich data base on the topic of Climate Change. Sixteen 11th graders, working with a partner, engaged in electronic argumentive dialogs with classmates who held an opposing view on the topic and in some evidence-focused reflective activities, based on transcriptions of their dialogs. Another sixteen 11th graders, who studied the data base in the learning environment for the same amount of time as experimental-condition students but did not engage in an argumentive discourse activity, served as a comparison condition. Students who engaged in an evidence-focused dialogic intervention increased the use of evidence in their dialogs, used more evidence that functioned to weaken opponents’ claims and used more accurate evidence. Significant gains in evidence use and in meta-level communication about evidence were observed after students engaged in reflective activities. We frame our discussion of these findings in terms of their implications for promoting use of evidence in argumentation, and in relation to the development of epistemological understanding in science

From Theory of Mind to Epistemic Cognition. A Lifespan perspective

Although a sizeable body of research now exists in epistemic cognition, it tends to stand apart to other aspects of cognition and cognitive development.  Here it is proposed situating epistemic cognition in a context of its roots and development as a dimension of cognitive development more generally. The present paper draws a strong continuous link between the earliest understanding of other minds, examined under the Theory of Mind, and the tasks that confront adults throughout the lifespan – that of interpreting evidence and coordinating it with what they already take to be true. The primary focus is the How question of knowledge change. To gain insight into this question, it is proposed focusing on epistemic activity in action. It is suggested here that the standards for knowledge formation and revision, which are closely connected with epistemic understanding of theory-evidence coordination, change developmentally. Another major change, proposed, is that the process increasingly comes under conscious control

Developing Epistemological Understanding in Scientific and Social Domains through Argumentation

Wie das Argumentieren die Entwicklung eines epistemologischen Verständnisses in wissenschaftlichen und sozialen Bereichen fördern kann Zusammenfassung. Diese Arbeit untersucht, ob eine Intervention zur Veränderung des Argumentationsverhaltens die Entwicklung eines evaluativen epistemologischen Verständnisses fördern kann. Studierende wurden randomisiert einer von zwei Interventionsbedingungen zugewiesen, die sich entweder mit einem sozialen oder ein wissenschaftlichen Thema beschäftigten. Die epistemologischen Überzeugungen wurden vor und nach der Intervention anhand eines sozialen und eines wissenschaftlichen Themas ermittelt. Zusätzlich wurden die Ansichten der Studierenden über ihre eigenen Wissensprozesse sowie über die von Wissenschaftlern erhoben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass dialogische Argumentationsaktivitäten die Entwicklung eines evaluativen domänenspezifischen epistemologischen Verständnisses unterstützte. Weitere qualitative Analysen zeigten, dass die Teilnehmer je nach Interventionsbedingung die Evidenz im Prozess des Wissenserwerbs unterschiedlich bewerten. Dies unterstützt die Ansicht, dass es verschiedene Herausforderungen bei der Entwicklung eines epistemologischen Verständnisses in den Domänen gibt. Die Erkenntnisse dieser Studie haben wichtige pädagogische Implikationen und weisen darauf hin, dass argumentative Aktivitäten ein vielversprechender Weg sind, um die Entwicklung eines angemessenen epistemologischen Verständnisses zu unterstützen. Abstract. The present work examines whether engagement in an argument-based intervention can support the development of evaluativist epistemological understanding. Students were randomly assigned to one of two intervention conditions – focusing on either a social or science topic – and their epistemological understanding was assessed before and after the intervention using both a social and a science topic. Students' views about their own and scientists' processes of knowing were also assessed. Results showed that engagement in dialogic argumentative activities supported the development of more evaluativist domain-specific epistemological understanding. Further qualitative analysis showed domain differences in how participants valued evidence in the process of knowing, supporting the view that there are different challenges in the development of epistemological understanding across domains. Overall, the present study's findings have important educational implications and suggest that engagement in argumentative activities is a promising pathway for supporting the development of epistemological understanding

Examining My-Side Bias During and After Reading Controversial Historical Accounts

The present study examines individuals’ thinking during and after reading controversial historical accounts and the possible contribution of epistemic beliefs, emotions, and priorknowledge in this context. Young adults (n = 39) were asked to read two accounts about a recent war in their country, an own-side account – from a historian of their ethnic group – and an other-side account ‒ from a historian from the adversary ethnic group. Participants were asked to think-aloud and report their emotions during reading. After reading, participants were asked to write a summary. Results showed that participants exhibited my-side bias during reading and writing, while there were also interesting individual differences in epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge. Participants with evaluativist epistemic beliefs were less likely to show my-side bias in the writing task. Epistemic beliefs, along with prior knowledge and the emotion of anger, predicted also low-epistemic processing during reading of other-side text. The paper concludes with a discussion of the educational implications in promoting critical thinking about controversial issues in history

“Argue With Me”: A Method for Developing Argument Skills

Philosophers, psychologists, and educators all acknowledge the need to support individuals to develop argument skills. Less clear is how to do so. Here, we examine a particular program, the “Argue with Me” dialogue-based pedagogical approach, having this objective. Reviewing approximately 30 studies that have used the “Argue with Me” (AWM) method with students of different backgrounds and educational levels—primary, middle, high school, and university—across five different countries, we examine its strengths and limitations in terms of what develops and how this development occurs. Dense engagement in goal-based activities involving extended dialogic practice and reflection is shown to be effective in fostering argument skills and dispositions. Studies examining the mechanisms of such development identify the role of meta-level understanding regarding the purpose of argument. This understanding is epistemological in nature and supports the development of dialogic skills at the strategic level. In addition to examining the AWM method as a means for supporting the development of argument skills, this review examines how empirical research employing the method in varying contexts provides insights into the nature of argument skills and their development, as well as the relations between argument skills and other skills or forms of understanding. For instance, we examine how studies employing the AWM method answer questions such as “How general or content-specific are argument skills?” or “How do dialogic argument and individual written or spoken argument connect as they develop?” We address these questions by examining evidence regarding the transfer of gains across topics, domains, and individual vs. dialogic modes of expression. Finally, the pedagogical implications of the “Argue with Me” approach are discussed, especially with regard to its potential both as a stand-alone method for developing argument skills and integrated into traditional literacy and social studies curricula

Teachers’ ability to construct arguments, but not their perceived self-efficacy of teaching, predicts their ability to evaluate arguments

The aim of the present study was to examine science and non-science education secondary school teachers’ skill to evaluate arguments, and how this skill relates to their skill to construct arguments and to their perceptions about their ability to teach argumentation skills effectively. The study also examined whether teachers’ argument skills and their self-efficacy of teaching argumentation were domain-specific. Social-science education teachers, who teach literature and history, and physical science education teachers, were asked to write two essays – one on a social topic and another on a socio-scientific topic–, to evaluate the quality of written arguments and to complete an instrument assessing their self-efficacy of teaching argumentation. Results showed that teachers’ ability to construct arguments predicted their ability to evaluate arguments. Yet, although teachers expressed high self-efficacy in teaching argumentation in both domains, their abilities to evaluate and construct arguments were not sufficiently developed, in neither domain. The findings of the present study have important educational implications, suggesting that specific attention needs to be paid on teachers’ skills of constructing and evaluating arguments

Democracy Under Attack: Challenges of Addressing Ethical Issues of AI and Big Data for More Democratic Digital Media and Societies

The potency and potential of digital media to contribute to democracy has recently come under intense scrutiny. In the context of rising populism, extremism, digital surveillance and manipulation of data, there has been a shift towards more critical approaches to digital media including its producers and consumers. This shift, concomitant with calls for a path toward digital well-being, warrants a closer investigation into the study of the ethical issues arising from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data. The use of Big Data and AI in digital media are often incongruent with fundamental democratic principles and human rights. The dominant paradigm is one of covert exploitation, erosion of individual agency and autonomy, and a sheer lack of transparency and accountability, reminiscent of authoritarian dynamics rather than of a digital well-being with equal and active participation of informed citizens. Our paper contributes to the promising research landscape that seeks to address these ethical issues by providing an in-depth analysis of the challenges that stakeholders are faced with when attempts are made to mitigate the negative implications of Big Data and AI. Rich empirical evidence collected from six focus groups, across Europe, with key stakeholders in the area of shaping ethical dimensions of technology, provide useful insights into elucidating the multifaceted dilemmas, tensions and obstacles that stakeholders are confronted with when being tasked to address ethical issues of digital media, with a focus on AI and Big Data. Identifying, discussing and explicating these challenges is a crucial and necessary step if researchers and policymakers are to envisage and design ways and policies to overcome them. Our findings enrich the academic discourse and are useful for practitioners engaging in the pursuit of responsible innovation that protects the well-being of its users while defending the democratic foundations which are at stake

Contemplating the Opposition: Does a Personal Touch Matter?

Is it important to hear positions opposing one’s own from others who genuinely believe them? We examine whether the thinking of those who engage in discourse with peers who hold an opposing view benefit by hearing arguments favoring the opposing position expressed by individuals known to hold this position. We report on 131 young adolescents who were given access to identical relevant evidence, and engaged in dialogs on gas vs solar energy, in preparation for a whole class debate. In the (randomly assigned) experimental classroom, electronic dialogs were conducted with a series of peers who held an opposing view; in the control classroom, dialogs were confined to same-side peers. Differences in prevalence and types of functional evidence-based argumentive idea units in individual final essays on the topic favored the experimental group. Also, differences by condition in participants’ choice of evidence to access during the preceding dialogs reflected differences in patterns of inquiry. Differences appeared as well in post-intervention essays on a non-discourse topic, suggesting the superior group had made gains in understanding argumentation itself. Extension of the study longitudinally to a second year with a new topic showed continued gains and condition differences, supporting this interpretation, with the experimental group surpassing the control group. Potential generalization to adults’ discourse on topics involving higher affect and commitment is considered

Epistemic perspective and online epistemic processing of evidence: Developmental and domain differences

Relations between epistemic perspective and online epistemic processing of evidence when reading a text were examined. Thirty-seven young adolescents and 24 graduate university students were asked to read and think-aloud with two texts, one in the history domain and the other in the science domain. Participants also completed a prior-knowledge test and an instrument assessing their epistemic perspective. Results showed that participants who exhibited an evaluativist epistemic perspective and high prior-knowledge used the epistemic standard of scientific research more than participants who held non-evaluativist epistemic perspective. Furthermore, an age-related developmental difference was observed, with adults using the epistemic standard of scientific research more than young adolescents. Domain differences were observed in both participants’ epistemic perspective and online epistemic processing. Participants overall engaged in online epistemic processing of evidence more in the history topic than in the science topic

Learning by Arguing

Can argumentation practice simultaneously promote knowledge acquisition while advancing skill in the practice itself? We examine the effectiveness of a dialog-based argument curriculum in fostering middle-school students' knowledge acquisition as well as dialogic and written argumentation skill with respect to a content-rich, socially significant topic. Results of two studies, one involving a physical science topic and the other a social topic, showed a single intervention could meet both objectives. Study 1 following a previously used model of extended intervention (nine sessions over five weeks) and Study 2 experimenting with a dense model of six intervention hours completed over two days. Both were found effective. A novel question-and-answer method was found superior to a traditional one in promoting acquisition of factual knowledge sufficient to support argumentation. With respect to skill gains, a prompt to consider incongruent evidence showed the greatest effect in furthering mastery of a critical argument skill – to acknowledge and address, rather than ignore, evidence that counters one’s favored position