Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions

Hefter, Markus H.; Berthold, Kirsten; Renkl, Alexander; Rieß, Werner; Schmid, Sebastian; Fries, Stefan

doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9320-y

Cited by 53 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study by , an effect on conceptual knowledge about probability theory was in fact mediated by selfexplanation quality that referred to probability theory. Furthermore, in the study by Hefter et al (2014) a delayed effect on declarative knowledge about argumentative elements was mediated by self-explanation quality referring to argumentative elements. Therefore, we also assumed that self-explanations referring to characteristics and consequences of each level of epistemological understanding and of intellectual values mediate the effect on the conceptual knowledge about characteristics and consequences of each level of epistemological understanding and of intellectual values.…”

Section: Overview Of the Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Such selfexplaining was also part of a training intervention by Hefter et al (2014) that successfully fostered argumentation skills. However, there is no previous research about example-based training interventions to specifically foster (precursors of) evaluativist epistemological understanding or intellectual values, thus leaving a research desideratum that is addressed in our study.…”

Section: The Time-efficiency and Effectiveness Of Self-explaining Vidmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, we presented a theoretical introduction about what is to be learned, as it is typical of example-based learning (e.g., Renkl, 2014). As in the studies by Schworm and Renkl (2007) and Hefter et al (2014), the theoretical introduction focused on the content that the learners were supposed to extract from the video examples. In our study, the theoretical introduction focused on characteristics and consequences of all three levels of epistemological understanding and of intellectual values, for example, pointing out that regarding scientific assertions as freely chosen opinions leads to (at best) a shallow understanding of the topic.…”

Section: Developing a Short-term Training Intervention To Foster Precmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, we implemented a subsequent selfregulated argumentation phase that afforded self-regulated argumentation on a new topic (i.e., not covered by the video examples) without any support. Hefter et al (2014) also used such an argumentation phase in their training intervention on argumentation skills. This phase should serve as an opportunity to apply evaluativist knowledge as seen in the previous video examples.…”

Section: Developing a Short-term Training Intervention To Foster Precmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values

Hefter

Renkl

Rieß

et al. 2015

Learning and Instruction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Overview Of the Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: The Time-efficiency and Effectiveness Of Self-explaining Vidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Developing a Short-term Training Intervention To Foster Precmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Developing a Short-term Training Intervention To Foster Precmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values

Hefter

Renkl

Rieß

et al. 2015

Learning and Instruction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Our results suggest that such trainings would likely profit from the inclusion of full-fledged arguments-including warrants-to focalise relations between premises and conclusions (Toulmin, 1958). Some evidence has shown that even short-term interventions can be effective in improving argument evaluation skills in students (e.g., Hefter et al, 2014Hefter et al, , 2015. For example, Larson et al (2009) found that a tutorial explaining general skills associated with successful argument evaluation to high school and college students led to an increased performance when immediate feedback was provided during training.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

Mühlen

Richter

Schmid

et al. 2015

Thinking & Reasoning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to evaluate scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences. Readers spontaneously validate presented information against their knowledge and beliefs but differ in their ability to strategically evaluate the soundness of informal arguments. The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate informal arguments. Using a think-aloud procedure, we identified the specific strategies students and scientists apply when judging the plausibility of arguments and classifying common argumentation fallacies. Results indicate that students, compared to scientists, have difficulties forming these judgements and base them on intuition and opinion rather than the internal consistency of arguments. Our findings are discussed using the mental model theory framework. Although introductory students validate scientific information against their knowledge and beliefs, their judgements are often erroneous, in part because their use of strategy is immature. Implications for systematic trainings of epistemic competences are discussed. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 14 April 2015; Accepted 27 November 2015KEYWORDS Informal argument evaluation; epistemic competences; mental model theory; think-aloud procedure; competences in higher education Arguments can affect our daily lives in many ways, whether we think of politicians trying to persuade us to vote for a particular party, a newspaper article providing a certain perspective on a societal issue, or taking decisions about which kind of career we would like to pursue. In scientific discourse, arguments also play a central role, because they link theoretical claims to supporting empirical evidence. Students entering university are confronted with scientific literature that presents different and at times conflicting theories backed up by more or less compelling evidence. The ability to evaluate This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. THINKING & REASONING, 2016 VOL. 22, NO. 2, 221À249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015 scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences (Britt, Richter, & Rouet, 2014). The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate arguments and which strategies they use to judge their plausibility. Successful readers possess a broad number of general processing strategies that they use in a flexible way, depending on the processing goal (Wyatt et al., 1993). Although argumentation skills are generally not formally taught in higher education, we expect scie...

show abstract

Digital training intervention on strategies for tackling physical misconceptions—Self‐explanation matters

Hefter

Fromme

Berthold

2022

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Future teachers face the challenge of whether and how to address their students' misconceptions—naïve concepts that often conflict with the correct scientific concepts taught at school. We developed a short‐term digital training intervention on instructional knowledge about strategies for addressing students' misconceptions in physics. It comprised cognitive modelling of three instructional strategies (i.e. ignoring, refuting, and integrating) and self‐explanation prompts. In a web experiment with 58 teacher students, we found that our digital intervention fostered learning processes (self‐explanation quality) and learning outcomes (knowledge about three instructional strategies). It can thus help teacher students to acquire initial knowledge about how to tackle their future students' misconceptions. Self‐explanation quality mediated the intervention's effect on instructional knowledge both immediately and 3 weeks later. These mediation effects emphasise the impact of self‐explanations while learning from complex cognitive models. Finally, the intervention's positive side effect of reducing participants' own misconceptions is an additional practical advantage.

show abstract

Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions

Cited by 53 publications

References 29 publications

Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values

Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

Digital training intervention on strategies for tackling physical misconceptions—Self‐explanation matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About