Advertisement

Cognitive Tools for Scaffolding Argumentation

  • John NesbitEmail author
  • Hui Niu
  • Qing Liu
Chapter

Abstract

The cognitive skill of argumentation has two fundamental roles in education. First, it is a curricular goal in and of itself (“learn to argue”), and second, it is an instructional strategy for advancing understanding in history, mathematics, science, and many other subjects (“argue to learn”). In this chapter we inquire how educational technologies can advance these interdependent and mutually supportive roles of argumentation. Our focus is on cognitive tools learners can use to generate arguments more complex than those they would otherwise be capable of. We introduce the ideas of cognitive schemas, cognitive tools, argument tagging, and argument maps; and we discuss our research on the benefits of using argumentation-oriented study tools. Finally, we consider how such tools might be introduced across school subjects.

Keywords

Argumentation Cognitive tools Scaffold Argue 

References

  1. Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. R. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 433–440.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1162496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2013). Argument diagrams and learning: Cognitive and educational perspectives. In G. Schraw, M. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 329–356). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Argunet Editor [Open Source Software]. Available from http://www.argunet.org/editor/
  5. Arievitch, I. M., & Stetsenko, A. (2000). The quality of cultural tools and cognitive development: Gal’perin’s perspective and its implications. Human Development, 43(2), 69–92.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000022661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asterhan, C. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dansereau, D. F. (1995). Derived structural schemas and the transfer of knowledge. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, A. Marini, A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 93–121). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 16(2), 89–98.  https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600277971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hynd, C. R., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440–446.Google Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Tracing the development of argumentative writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33(1), 92–121.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315617157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Liu, Q., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012, April). Conceptual change with refutational maps. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  23. Mao, L., Nesbit, J. C., Egan, R. G., & Cai, Q. (2010, May). The effects of argumentation goals on recall, causal understanding, and reasoning. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Denver.Google Scholar
  24. Maralee, H. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research and Development, 30, 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). Concept maps for learning: Theory, research, and design. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 303–328). Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2008). Tools for learning in an information society. In T. Willoughby & E. Wood (Eds.), Children’s learning in a digital world (pp. 173–195). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Niu, H., Sharp, J., & Nesbit, J. (2015, June). Teaching students argumentation with the dialectical map. Annual Conference of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  29. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549–565.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park, J., & Han, S. (2002). Using deductive reasoning to promote the change of students’ conceptions about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state-of-the-art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of AI-ED 95: 7th world conference on artificial intelligence in education. Charlottesville: AACE. Washington, DC, August 1995, pp. 266–273.Google Scholar
  35. Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1981). The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(2), 413–423.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.Google Scholar
  38. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Winne, P. H., Nesbit, J. C., & Popowich, F. (2017). nStudy: A system for researching information problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations