Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Dialogue: Changing The Game of Classroom Discussion: Alan Oliveira

    Uploaded by

    Ariny Zaqiyah
    The document discusses the importance of dialogic learning in classrooms through argumentation and discussion. It argues that students should engage in dialogue rather than just receive lectures from teachers. Specifically, it recommends teacher questioning, classroom argumentation, and peer learning. It notes that the Next Generation Science Standards emphasize argumentation as an essential practice of science. However, classroom argumentation often involves problematic patterns like fallacious reasoning and disrespect between students. The document suggests that students need explicit instruction in argumentation skills before engaging in arguments to learn science effectively. Teachers should frame argumentation as a discussion rather than debate to promote a more constructive dialogic approach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dialogue: Changing The Game of Classroom Discussion: Alan Oliveira

    Uploaded by

    Ariny Zaqiyah
    16 views32 pages
    The document discusses the importance of dialogic learning in classrooms through argumentation and discussion. It argues that students should engage in dialogue rather than just receive lectures from teachers. Specifically, it recommends teacher questioning, classroom argumentation, and peer learning. It notes that the Next Generation Science Standards emphasize argumentation as an essential practice of science. However, classroom argumentation often involves problematic patterns like fallacious reasoning and disrespect between students. The document suggests that students need explicit instruction in argumentation skills before engaging in arguments to learn science effectively. Teachers should frame argumentation as a discussion rather than debate to promote a more constructive dialogic approach.

    Original Description:

    Scientific

    Original Title

    8271

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the importance of dialogic learning in classrooms through argumentation and discussion. It argues that students should engage in dialogue rather than just receive lectures from teachers. Specifically, it recommends teacher questioning, classroom argumentation, and peer learning. It notes that the Next Generation Science Standards emphasize argumentation as an essential practice of science. However, classroom argumentation often involves problematic patterns like fallacious reasoning and disrespect between students. The document suggests that students need explicit instruction in argumentation skills before engaging in arguments to learn science effectively. Teachers should frame argumentation as a discussion rather than debate to promote a more constructive dialogic approach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views32 pages

    Dialogue: Changing The Game of Classroom Discussion: Alan Oliveira

    Uploaded by

    Ariny Zaqiyah
    The document discusses the importance of dialogic learning in classrooms through argumentation and discussion. It argues that students should engage in dialogue rather than just receive lectures from teachers. Specifically, it recommends teacher questioning, classroom argumentation, and peer learning. It notes that the Next Generation Science Standards emphasize argumentation as an essential practice of science. However, classroom argumentation often involves problematic patterns like fallacious reasoning and disrespect between students. The document suggests that students need explicit instruction in argumentation skills before engaging in arguments to learn science effectively. Teachers should frame argumentation as a discussion rather than debate to promote a more constructive dialogic approach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 32

    Dialogue: Changing the Game

    of Classroom Discussion

    Alan Oliveira
    MOP Institute
    2017
    Shift Toward Dialogue
     There is increasing consensus that content and language
    instruction should be dialogic (more effective).

     Rather than receiving lecturers (monologue), students


    need to engage in dialogue:
     Teacher questioning (not IRE!);
     Classroom Argumentation
     Peer learning and group work.

    Fact
    Next Generation Science Standards
     Eight essential practices of science and engineering:
     1. Asking questions
     2. Developing and using models
     3. Planning and carrying out investigations
     4. Analyzing and interpreting data
     5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
     6. Constructing explanations
     7. Engaging in argument from evidence
     8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating
    information
    3 out of 8 are dialogic!!!!
    NGSS Practice 7: Argumentation
     “Argumentation is a process for reaching
    agreements about [best] explanations.”

     In Grades 9-12, students should:


     Construct, use, and/or present an oral and written
    argument or counter-arguments based on data and
    evidence.
     Respectfully provide and/or receive critiques on
    scientific arguments by probing reasoning and
    evidence, challenging ideas and conclusions,
    responding thoughtfully to diverse perspectives,
    and determining additional information required to
    resolve contradictions.
    How Scientists Really Argue…
    STUPID!!!
    In the 1940s, scientists debated whether the
    genetic material was made up of protein or
    DNA:
    “Of course there were scientists who thought the
    evidence favoring DNA was inconclusive and
    preferred to believe that genes were protein
    molecules. Francis (Crick) however, did not worry FOOL!!!
    about these skeptics. Many were cantankerous fools
    who unfailingly backed the wrong horses. One could
    not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in
    contrast to the popular conceptions supported by
    newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly
    number of scientists are not only narrow-minded
    and dull, but also just stupid. (Watson 1968, 13)”
    The Root of the Problem
     Myth of science objectivity (McComas,
    I
    1996): scientists are particularly objective DISAGREE!!!
    professionals and science is characterized
    by complete objectivity (bias-free).
     To argue scientifically is to argue
    objectively:
     focused on facts (not people)
     relationships are unimportant
     no need for politeness (ruthless
    objectivity)
     The result: lots of communication
    problems!
    Let’s Undo the Myth
     Arguing is not as simple and
    straightforward as commonly
    assumed.
     Even scientists struggle to argue
    objectively and intelligently!
     The emotional challenges of
    argumentation can not be ignored.
     We need to better understand what
    argumentation is as well as its
    demands (thinking and emotionality).
    Background Info

     Interest in argumentation
    is not novel.
     Its study dates back to
    Aristotle.
    What is argumentation anyway?
    Some definitions:
     the art of persuading others to think or act in a
    definite way, orally or in writing (Ketcham, 1917)
     the process of proving or disproving a
    proposition (MacEwan, 1898). Purpose: to establish
    truth or combat error in the mind of another.
     reason giving in communicative situations by people
    whose purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs,
    attitudes, and values (Freeley & Steinberg, 2008)

    Argumentation ≠ Argument
    argument is a product within the argumentation process
    What’s argumentation anyway?
    Toulmin’s Argument Structure

    • Claim: a stance or position


    • Data: empirical evidence
    • The claim is justified (warranted)
    on the basis of available evidence.
    • Backing: scientific principle or
    concept underlying the warrant.
    Which one is a scientific argument?
     It’s wrong to experiment on animals. Moral Claim

     I don’t believe in evolution because I’m a


    Christian. Value Claim

     Global warming is true since the icecaps are


    melting.
    Scientific Claim
    What makes an argument scientific?
    Global warming is true since the ice caps are melting.

    So
    Evidence Claim
    Melting ice caps Global warming
    Since

    The melting is being caused


    Warrant by the higher atmospheric
    temperatures

    Scientific arguments -- claims based on evidence


    (not opinion, family values or personal values)
    A few notes:
     In casual conversation, argumentation is
    informal:
     Argument components/structure are mostly
    implicit;
     enthymematic argumentation

     Argument analysis seek to:


     Identify argument components
     Make the rhetorical structure explicit
     Extract the essence of arguments.
    A few notes:
     Toulmin’s model is simplistic:
     focused on the structure of a single argument
    (micro-level).
     can be used only for the most simple arguments.

     Real-life argumentation is much more complex:


     Multiple arguments are presented
     Speakers attack different parts of argument, not
    just the claim (goes beyond rebuttals)
     Speakers even can counter attack rebuttals!!!
    (aka, counter-rebuttals and refutations)
     Additional argument components exist.
    Classroom Argumentation

     Case-based: students argue in


    response to dilemmas.
     Typical format:
     debates at the end of instructional units
    (projects)
     role-playing (town hall meeting, mock
    trials…)
     Goal: Students have to select and
    defend a course of action.
    Traditional Debate Format

    - Short narrative stories with characters, dialogue and a plot;


    - Open or close-ended;
    - Realistic and real-life.
    Classroom Argumentation
     Students are not explicitly taught what
    constitutes scientific argumentation.

     Teachers simply engage students in debates


    with unclear rules of participation.

     Disrespect, fallacies, too emotional…

    Arguing to learn
     Lots of problems!!! without
    learning to argue
    Problematic Patterns
     normative reasoning (arguments based on social norms);
     casuistical reasoning:
     confusion between hypothetical and actual situations
     focus on the veracity of dilemmas rather than deciding on a particular course of action;

     fallacious reasoning:
     inability to distinguish between evidence- and opinion-based arguments
     fusion of personal beliefs with scientific facts,
     ecological misconceptions,
     simplistic and low-quality argumentation).

     claims unsupported by data, poorly articulated claims, and no


    rebuttals (Zeidler, et al., 2003);
     overlook disconfirming evidence and rely upon uncritical statement of
    value preferences (Hogan, 2002).
    Informal Fallacies
     Definition: (persuasive) arguments that
    violate the rules of logic.

     Major Categories:
     fallacies of relevance (logically irrelevant
    premises)
     fallacies of ambiguity (ambiguous words or
    terms – shifts in meanig)
     Example: “Evolution is just a theory”
    Based on “ Zeidler, D.L., Lederman, N.G., & Taylor, S.C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse:
    Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 76(4),
    437-450.”
    Informal Fallacies
     Ad hominem argument – attacking a person’s character or
    credibility. Example: “David’s objection to the nuclear power
    plant should be dismissed entirely, since he never knows what
    he is talking about.”

     Appeal to popularity – arguing that most people treat a claim


    as truth or acceptable. Example: “Evolution? Of course evolution
    is a proven theory! Everyone believes that; so, it hardly seems
    possible not to believe it.”

     False dilemma – argument that assumes only two possible


    sides. Example: “Well, I guess if Darwin’s theory of evolution is
    wrong on these issues, then the creationist view must be right.”

     Appeal to authority –using the opinion of a famous scientist or


    religion to justify a claim. Example: “The Bible says so.”
    Agonism (Tannen)
    - Debates and argumentation tend to
    foster agonism:
    - Combativeness
    - Polarization
    - Aggression (attacks)
    - Unproductive approach to problem-
    solving and decision-making
    - Fosters negative feelings (anger,
    defensiveness, etc.)
    - “Battle/War” metaphors should be
    avoided
    What lesson can be learned?
     Students need to be prepared
    to argue scientifically.
     Students need to learn to
    argue before arguing to learn.
     Argumentation skills should
    not be presumed.
     Learning science/math through
    argumentation requires
    guidance and scaffolding.
     Argumentation needs to be
    taught explicitly.
    What can you do?
    Suggestion 1
     Avoid using the word
    “debate” (too combative).

     Frame argumentation
    dialogically by calling it:
     “science dialogue”,
     “dialogical argumentation”,
     or simply a “discussion”.

    The power of words in shaping


    expectations is too often overlooked.
    Suggestion 2
     Have students analyze the argument structure
    of texts and videos (modeling).

    Scaffold: first written texts then videos (oral argumentation is


    more difficult).
    Suggestion 3
     Have students agree or disagree with a
    statement :
     The giraffe got its long neck by stretching for leaves
    at the top of trees.
     A meteorite hitting the Earth caused the extinction of
    dinosaurs.
     Frequent use of cell phones can cause brain
    cancer.
     The table you are working on is mostly empty
    space.
    Scaffold: from isolated sentences to texts (more difficult)
    Scaffold: from analysis to production (from others’ to own
    arguments).
    Suggestion 4
     Use starter sentences to help students
    state their positions:
     “The statement argues that _______. I agree
    with the statement because _____.”
     “The statement contends that ________;
    however, I disagree with the statement
    because _____.”
     “On one hand I agree with the statement about
    _____ because _____ ;
     On the other hand, I disagree with it because
    _______.”
    Suggestion 5

     Provide discussion questions:


     1. What types of evidence did the debaters
    use?
     2. How did the debaters use evidence to
    support their arguments? Give specific
    examples.
     3. Which debater had the stronger evidence?
    Justify your answer.
    Suggestion 6
     Provide writing prompts:
    Suggestion 7
     Model how NOT to argue.
    For example, introduce students to reasoning fallacies
    (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

    Aka. tautology
    Suggestion 8
     Go beyond rhetorical structures and also
    teach politeness and respect (how to
    disagree).
    Arguing is an Art!

    You might also like