Dialogue theory for critical thinking

Walton, Douglas

doi:10.1007/bf00128147

Cited by 146 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Advanced argument skills are associated with appreciation of science as an enterprise that advances through coordination of evidence with theories, rather than as the accumulation of facts (Sandoval, 2005). The goal of advanced argument skills, according to Walton (1989), is to weaken the opponent"s claims. Key means to achieving this goal are the employment of argumentive strategies that critique the opposing claim and the effective use of evidence (Kuhn, Zillmer, Crowell & Zavala, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues

Iordanou

Constantinou

2014

Learning and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on a study of the effect of meta-level awareness on the use of evidence in discourse. The participants were 66 pre-service teachers who were engaged in a dialogic activity. Meta-level awareness regarding the use of evidence in discourse was heightened by having same-side peers collaborating in arguing on the computer against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue on the topic of Climate Change and by engaging in explicit reflective activities on the use of evidence. Participants showed significant advances both in their skill of producing evidence-based arguments and counterarguments and regarding the accuracy of the evidence used. Advances were also observed at the meta-level, reflecting at least implicit understanding that using evidence is an important goal of argumentation. Another group of pre-service teachers, who studied about the role of evidence in science in the context of regular curriculum and served as a control condition, did not exhibit comparable advances in the use of evidence in argumentation. Educational implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues

Iordanou

Constantinou

2014

Learning and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This results in critiquing opponent's claim through counter arguments involving a dialogic interaction (McNeill & Knight, 2013). Thus, the main goal of argumentation is to support one's argument and to undermine the opponent's position through identifying weakness in the opponent's argument (Walton, 1989).…”

Section: Understanding Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of Scientific Argumentation in Science Education

Faize

Husain

Nisar

2017

EURASIA J MATH SCI T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of argumentation in science education is associated with many benefits. Some of these include developing critical skills, promoting spirit of enquiry, enhancing conceptual understanding and improving academic performance of students. However, there are also some issues and challenges while using argumentation in science classrooms. This research will discuss the strength of using scientific argumentation in science education. The findings from other such studies will also be critically reviewed to seek an in-depth understanding of the use of argumentation in teaching and associated challenges. The research would help in improving the use of argumentation in teaching and exploring solution to problems and challenges associated with this method.

show abstract

“…According to the former, there is no such thing as a universally valid argument; rather, arguments are successful to the extent to which the audience agrees with its central claim. As such, the goal of argumentation is to lead the audience to adhere to the validity of one's claim (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1958;Walton, 1989). In persuasive argumentation, novice arguers often focus on strengthening one's own position (D. Kuhn, 1991;Vellom & Anderson, 1999).…”

Section: Argumentation Abilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Belland

2016

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I describe the intended learning outcomes of scaffolding-content knowledge and higher-order thinking abilities-and link these to the goals advanced by the Next Generation Science Standards and related documents from recent curricular revisions in STEM education. Furthermore, I address different ways in which scaffolding's effect can be measured (assessment level), and explore whether there are differences in the magnitude of scaffolding's effect according to assessment level. Meta-analysis results show that there is no difference in effect size magnitude on the basis of intended learning outcome (i.e., content knowledge or higher-order thinking abilities). Scaffolding's effect was greater when measured at the principles level than when measured at the concept level. But scaffolding's effect was statistically greater than 0 and substantial for all three assessment levels (i.e., concept, principles, and application). These results are then discussed.

show abstract

Dialogue theory for critical thinking

Cited by 146 publications

References 8 publications

Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues

Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues

A Critical Review of Scientific Argumentation in Science Education

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About