批判性视角:促进和评估对话焦点的在线书面论证

Q3 Social Sciences
S. McNaughton, Tong Zhu, N. Rosedale, Jacinta Oldehaver, R. Jesson, Cynthia Greenleaf
{"title":"批判性视角:促进和评估对话焦点的在线书面论证","authors":"S. McNaughton, Tong Zhu, N. Rosedale, Jacinta Oldehaver, R. Jesson, Cynthia Greenleaf","doi":"10.5817/sp2019-4-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we consider the impact of classroom instruction and an online argumentation tool (AT) on students' written argumentation and 21st century skill development. Drawing on a wider study of 1:1 digital schools in Auckland, New Zealand, we examine the three-way relationship between argumentation teaching, student use of an online discussion board, and evidence of perspective taking. Longitudinal data from six elementary schools are analyzed, including 17 observations (in which the teaching focus was a nominated 21st century skill) and 253 student-written posts. Developmental profiles of student argumentation were determined using Kuhn and Crowell's (2011) taxonomy of argumentation function demonstrating potential for (1) instructional focus and (2) practice or \"dosage\" effects. Integrated student argumentation profiles acknowledging the benefits of other perspectives were found to co-occur with a higher focus on argumentation instruction, but without increases in students' critical reasoning. In addition to focus effects, repeated use of the AT suggests that stronger dosages positively influence student perspective integration. The implications for perspective taking and critical thinking through argumentation are discussed in relation to citizenship and resilience in 21st century digital contexts.","PeriodicalId":37607,"journal":{"name":"Studia Paedagogica","volume":"24 1","pages":"119-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Perspective Taking: Promoting and Assessing Online Written Argumentation for Dialogic Focus\",\"authors\":\"S. McNaughton, Tong Zhu, N. Rosedale, Jacinta Oldehaver, R. Jesson, Cynthia Greenleaf\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/sp2019-4-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, we consider the impact of classroom instruction and an online argumentation tool (AT) on students' written argumentation and 21st century skill development. Drawing on a wider study of 1:1 digital schools in Auckland, New Zealand, we examine the three-way relationship between argumentation teaching, student use of an online discussion board, and evidence of perspective taking. Longitudinal data from six elementary schools are analyzed, including 17 observations (in which the teaching focus was a nominated 21st century skill) and 253 student-written posts. Developmental profiles of student argumentation were determined using Kuhn and Crowell's (2011) taxonomy of argumentation function demonstrating potential for (1) instructional focus and (2) practice or \\\"dosage\\\" effects. Integrated student argumentation profiles acknowledging the benefits of other perspectives were found to co-occur with a higher focus on argumentation instruction, but without increases in students' critical reasoning. In addition to focus effects, repeated use of the AT suggests that stronger dosages positively influence student perspective integration. The implications for perspective taking and critical thinking through argumentation are discussed in relation to citizenship and resilience in 21st century digital contexts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37607,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Paedagogica\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"119-141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Paedagogica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2019-4-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Paedagogica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2019-4-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在本文中,我们考虑了课堂教学和在线论证工具(AT)对学生书面论证和21世纪技能发展的影响。根据对新西兰奥克兰1:1数字学校的更广泛研究,我们考察了论证教学、学生使用在线讨论板和观点采纳证据之间的三方关系。分析了来自六所小学的纵向数据,包括17项观察(其中教学重点是21世纪的一项提名技能)和253篇学生书面帖子。使用Kuhn和Crowell(2011)的论证功能分类法确定了学生论证的发展概况,证明了(1)教学重点和(2)实践或“剂量”效应的潜力。研究发现,承认其他观点的好处的综合学生论证档案与对论证教学的更高关注同时发生,但没有增加学生的批判性推理。除了焦点效应外,反复使用AT表明,更强的剂量对学生的视角整合有积极影响。在21世纪的数字环境中,通过论证对视角转换和批判性思维的影响与公民身份和韧性有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical Perspective Taking: Promoting and Assessing Online Written Argumentation for Dialogic Focus
In this article, we consider the impact of classroom instruction and an online argumentation tool (AT) on students' written argumentation and 21st century skill development. Drawing on a wider study of 1:1 digital schools in Auckland, New Zealand, we examine the three-way relationship between argumentation teaching, student use of an online discussion board, and evidence of perspective taking. Longitudinal data from six elementary schools are analyzed, including 17 observations (in which the teaching focus was a nominated 21st century skill) and 253 student-written posts. Developmental profiles of student argumentation were determined using Kuhn and Crowell's (2011) taxonomy of argumentation function demonstrating potential for (1) instructional focus and (2) practice or "dosage" effects. Integrated student argumentation profiles acknowledging the benefits of other perspectives were found to co-occur with a higher focus on argumentation instruction, but without increases in students' critical reasoning. In addition to focus effects, repeated use of the AT suggests that stronger dosages positively influence student perspective integration. The implications for perspective taking and critical thinking through argumentation are discussed in relation to citizenship and resilience in 21st century digital contexts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Paedagogica
Studia Paedagogica Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Studia Paedagogica publishes original papers on education, upbringing and learning from all spheres of social life. The papers are theoretical, but mainly empirical as the journal publishes research undertaken in the Czech Republic and abroad. The journal publishes only original research papers and is open to both experienced and early researchers. Early researchers can publish their papers in the section Emerging Researchers of the journal and are offered intensive editorial support. The journal is interdisciplinary - it covers current topics in educational research while at the same time providing scope for studies grounded in other social sciences. The journal publishes four issues per year, two issues are dedicated to general interest articles and are in Czech, two issues are on a single topic and are in English. Studia Paedagogica is a peer reviewed journal published by the Masaryk University. The executive editors are members of the staff of the Department of Educational Sciences and the editorial board comprises of international experts. The name of the journal is derived from the name of its predecessor, Studia minora facultatis philosophicae universitatis brunensis (Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity), which was issued from 1996 to 2008. However, the tradition of the journal dates much further back as the pedagogical-psychological series of the journal was published even between 1966 to 1995.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信