Analysis of Different Categories of Epistemic and Metacognitive Discourse in Argumentation

Na’ama Y. Av-Shalom, Randi M. Zimmerman, Clark A. Chinn, Ravit G. Duncan

Abstrakt


Argumentative practices have been shown to deepen understanding and improve academic performance. After 10 years of work with science curricula designed to develop reasoning, we present a framework grounded in data from our projects for identifying different forms of metacognitive engagement in science inquiry classes. We focus on four categories of discourse from our data: object of thought or discourse; expressions of what someone is thinking; degree of specificity; and discourse applying and tailoring understanding of epistemic cognition to particular topics. We present multiple examples in each of these categories. Our goal is to provide analytic tools along with examples to better identify and code argumentative discourse that advances students' apt epistemic performance.

Klíčová slova


metacognition; epistemic cognition; argumentation

https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2019-4-5

Celý článek:

PDF (English)

Reference

Zobrazit literaturu Skrýt literaturu

Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20432

Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389. | DOI 10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968

Barzilai, S., & Ka'adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193–232. | DOI 10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85. | DOI 10.1080/07370008.2011.636495

Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35. | DOI 10.1080/00461520.2013.863265

Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–506. | DOI 10.1002/1098-237X(200007)84:4<486::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-U

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, (pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. | DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Hefter, M. H., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., Fries, S., & Berthold, K. (2015). Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values. Learning and Instruction, 39(5), 11–22. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.002

Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students' knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84(1), 51–70. | DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<51::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-H

Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (Under Review). Disagreeing about how to know: The instructional value of explorations into knowing. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Educational Psychologist.

Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 425-453). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kuhn, D., & Dean Jr., D. (2010). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 268–273. | DOI 10.1207/s15430421tip4304_4

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. | DOI 10.1002/tea.10034

Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–5). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

Perelman, C. H., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2000). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133. | DOI 10.1080/00461520.2013.775898

Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20065

Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205. | DOI 10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1

Sosa, E. (2015). Judgment and agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. | DOI 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

Walton, D. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence. Cham: Springer.




 


Časopis Ústavu pedagogických věd FF MU.

Výkonná redakce: Klára Šeďová, Roman Švaříček, Zuzana Šalamounová, Martin Sedláček, Karla Brücknerová, Petr Hlaďo.

Redakční rada: Milan Pol (předseda redakční rady), Gunnar Berg, Michael Bottery, Hana Cervinkova, Theo van Dellen, Eve Eisenschmidt, Peter Gavora, Yin Cheong Cheng, Miloš Kučera, Adam Lefstein, Sami Lehesvuori, Jan Mareš, Jiří Mareš, Jiří Němec, Angelika Paseka, Jana Poláchová Vašťatková, Milada Rabušicová, Alina Reznitskaya, Michael Schratz, Martin Strouhal, Petr Svojanovský, António Teodoro, Tony Townsend, Anita Trnavčevič, Jan Vanhoof, Arnošt Veselý, Kateřina Vlčková, Eliška Walterová.

Časopis vydává čtyři čísla ročně.

ISSN 1803-7437 (print), ISSN 2336-4521 (online)