The Roles of Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation

Engelmann, Katharina; Chinn, Clark A.; Osborne, Jonathan; Fischer, Frank

doi:10.4324/9780203731826-1

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A digital platform (Mindomo) was used for the presentation of the arguments. In line with previous studies (Katharina et al, 2018;Valero Haro et al, 2019a) the students learned how to construct an argument before engaging in a computer-supported collaborative argumentation platform. The control group received assignments that included reading academic material and addressing related questions.…”

Section: Activity Designsupporting

confidence: 81%

Using Digital Concept Maps in Conflict Resolution Studies: Implications for Students’ Argumentative Skills, Domain-Specific Knowledge, and Academic Efficacy

Kapshuk¹,

Alt

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While argumentation emerges as one of the major learning skills in the twenty-first century, a somewhat opaque landscape is revealed in terms of identifying its potential in enhancing higher-education students’ domain-specific knowledge. In this study, argumentation-for-learning activity with digital concept mapping (CM) was designed and compared with a traditional teacher-centered activity to determine the former’s effectiveness in promoting students’ domain-specific factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge. This study also examines how the proposed activity may contribute to students’ academic efficacy and thus promote meaningful learning. A quasi-experimental design was employed by using convenience samples. Two identical courses were selected for this research: the first course with a total of 59 students (the research group), and the second course including a total of 63 students (the control group). Both groups’ domain-specific knowledge was assessed before and after the activity. The designed activity was found to be less effective in fostering factual knowledge and more effective in developing the conceptual and procedural knowledge domains. Another finding demonstrated the benefits of argumentation for learning with CM in facilitating students’ academic efficacy. It can be concluded that engaging students in a deep argumentation learning process may in turn deepen predominantly conceptual and procedural domain-specific knowledge. Limitations and implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Activity Designsupporting

confidence: 81%

Using Digital Concept Maps in Conflict Resolution Studies: Implications for Students’ Argumentative Skills, Domain-Specific Knowledge, and Academic Efficacy

Kapshuk¹,

Alt

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on this preliminary validation of the U.S. assessment in Germany, we modified the conceptual framework (Section Theoretical Components of COR) to accommodate for the close relationship between COR and generic critical thinking, multiple-source comprehension, scientific reasoning and informal argumentation approaches (Walton, 2006;Fischer et al, 2014Fischer et al, , 2018Goldman and Brand-Gruwel, 2018;Jahn and Kenner, 2018), and expanded the U.S. assessment framework to cover all online sources that students use for learning. We developed the scoring rubrics accordingly to validly measure the critical online reasoning (COR) ability of higher education students of all degree programs in Germany in accordance with our construct definition (Section Construct Definition of Critical Online Reasoning).…”

Section: Critical Online Reasoning Assessment (Cora)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing University Students' Critical Online Reasoning Ability: A Conceptual and Assessment Framework With Preliminary Evidence

Molerov

Zlatkin‐Troitschanskaia

Nagel

et al. 2020

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical evaluation skills when using online information are considered important in many research and education frameworks; critical thinking and information literacy are cited as key twenty-first century skills for students. Higher education may play a special role in promoting students' skills in critically evaluating (online) sources. Today, higher education students are more likely to use the Internet instead of offline sources such as textbooks when studying for exams. However, far from being a value-neutral, curated learning environment, the Internet poses various challenges, including a large amount of incomplete, contradictory, erroneous, and biased information. With low barriers to online publication, the responsibility to access, select, process, and use suitable relevant and trustworthy information rests with the (self-directed) learner. Despite the central importance of critically evaluating online information, its assessment in higher education is still an emerging field. In this paper, we present a newly developed theoretical-conceptual framework for Critical Online Reasoning (COR), situated in relation to prior approaches (“information problem-solving,” “multiple-source comprehension,” “web credibility,” “informal argumentation,” “critical thinking”), along with an evidence-centered assessment framework and its preliminary validation. In 2016, the Stanford History Education Group developed and validated the assessment of Civic Online Reasoning for the United States. At the college level, this assessment holistically measures students' web searches and evaluation of online information using open Internet searches and real websites. Our initial adaptation and validation indicated a need to further develop the construct and assessment framework for evaluating higher education students in Germany across disciplines over their course of studies. Based on our literature review and prior analyses, we classified COR abilities into three uniquely combined facets: (i) online information acquisition, (ii) critical information evaluation, and (iii) reasoning based on evidence, argumentation, and synthesis. We modeled COR ability from a behavior, content, process, and development perspective, specifying scoring rubrics in an evidence-centered design. Preliminary validation results from expert interviews and content analysis indicated that the assessment covers typical online media and challenges for higher education students in Germany and contains cues to tap modeled COR abilities. We close with a discussion of ongoing research and potentials for future development.

show abstract

“…We focus here on a more general set of CQs, but these various approaches are complementary. Also, scientific reasoning has both domain-general and domain-specific components (Engelmann et al, 2018), and the CQMAA is not meant to downplay the importance of domain knowledge, as domain knowledge is needed to address the CQs. The CQMAA is therefore complementary to other tools that help relinquish teacher control, such as texts, student experiments, or evidence cards, which are meant to enhance domain knowledge.…”

Section: Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extending science instruction beyond the CER: Use of critical questions in the argumentation of middle school science students

Nussbaum,

Van Winkle,

Tian

et al. 2024

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critiquing arguments is important for K‐12 science students to learn but not emphasized by the predominant claim‐evidence‐reasoning (CER) argumentation model. Drawing on the work of Yu and Zenker (2020), and Dove and Nussbaum (2018), we developed a tool for supplementing CER with critical questions (CQs) from philosophy that cover most, if not all, the logical dimensions of argument critique. Six middle school science teachers designed lessons involving argumentation, including the use of CQs. We assessed the effects on student self‐efficacy for engaging in argument critique, teacher self‐efficacy for using argument pedagogy, and teachers’ perceptions of the value of CQs. Qualitative data included teacher interviews, lesson transcripts, and student work samples. Quantitative data included surveys of student self‐efficacy administered at the beginning and end of the school year. There was evidence suggesting an increase over time in students’ confidence for engaging in argument critique and teachers’ confidence with argument pedagogy. However, only four of the six teachers were confident and skilled enough to include CQs in their lessons. Those who did use CQs tended to perceive them as providing a helpful structure for critique, prompts for deeper thinking, and a tool for fostering critical classroom norms. Discussion of CQs may have benefitted students’ writing by promoting peer critique and encouragement to elaborate. Overall, CQs afford students with a framework for judging argument strength. Scientific argumentation involving CQs provides a more contemporary philosophical basis for scientific argumentation than CER or the Toulmin model as it emphasizes the critical and dialogic nature of science.

show abstract

The Roles of Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Using Digital Concept Maps in Conflict Resolution Studies: Implications for Students’ Argumentative Skills, Domain-Specific Knowledge, and Academic Efficacy

Using Digital Concept Maps in Conflict Resolution Studies: Implications for Students’ Argumentative Skills, Domain-Specific Knowledge, and Academic Efficacy

Assessing University Students' Critical Online Reasoning Ability: A Conceptual and Assessment Framework With Preliminary Evidence

Extending science instruction beyond the CER: Use of critical questions in the argumentation of middle school science students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About