Перейти к основному содержанию

Воображаемый дискуссионный диалог может способствовать развитию критического мышления / Imagining Dialogue Can Boost Critical Thinking

Воображаемый дискуссионный диалог может способствовать развитию критического мышления / Imagining Dialogue Can Boost Critical Thinking

от Евгений Волков -
Количество ответов: 2

Speeech bubbles hanging on strings

Imagining Dialogue Can Boost Critical Thinking

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/imagining-dialogue-can-boost-critical-thinking.html

Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Envisioning opposing views leads to a more comprehensive examination of the issue,” says psychology researcher Julia Zavala (Teachers College, Columbia University), first author on the study. “Moreover, it impacts how people understand knowledge—constructing opposing views leads them to regard knowledge less as fact and more as information that can be scrutinized in a framework of alternatives and evidence.”

Students—and many adults—often have difficulty when it comes to persuasive or expository writing, failing to consider challenges to their own perspective. Previous research has shown that peer-to-peer discussion can help students overcome these limitations, but opportunities for these kinds of discussions are not always available. Zavala and study co-author Deanna Kuhn (also at Teachers College, Columbia University) wondered whether students may be able to reap the benefits of this kind of dialogue in a solo writing assignment.

Zavala and Kuhn asked 60 undergraduates to participate in a one-hour writing activity. Some participants were randomly assigned to construct a dialogue between TV commentators discussing two mayoral candidates. They received a list of notable problems that the city was facing and a list of actions proposed by each candidate to solve these problems. Other participants received the same information about the city and the candidates but were asked to write a persuasive essay highlighting the merits of each candidate instead. Then, participants in both groups were asked to write a script for a two-minute TV spot, promoting their preferred candidate.

Examining the students’ writing samples, Zavala and Kuhn found that participants who had constructed a dialogue included more discrete ideas in their writing than did participants who wrote an essay. Compared with the essays, the dialogues also included more statements that directly compared the two candidates and more statements that connected the city’s problems to the candidates’ proposed actions.

In the subsequent TV script, students who had written a dialogue made more references to city problems and to proposed actions, they made more statements that linked a problem with an action, they made more comparisons between the candidates, and they made more statements that were critical of the candidates’ positions, compared with students who had written an essay.

Students in the dialogue group were also less likely to make claims in their TV script that lacked supporting evidence. Only 20% of students in the dialogue group made one or more unsubstantiated claims, compared with 60% of the students in the essay group.

“These results support our hypothesis that the dialogic task would lead to deeper, more comprehensive processing of the two positions and hence a richer representation of each and the differences between them,” says Kuhn.  Constructing a dialogue thus helped to expand and sharpen students’ thinking, Zavala and Kuhn argue.

Results from a separate task indicated that participants in the dialogue group also showed a more sophisticated understanding of knowledge. While some of the participants in the essay group seemed to approach knowledge from an absolutist perspective – interpreting knowledge as a body of certain facts that exists apart from human judgment – none of the students in the dialogue group did so.

“The dialogue task, which took no more than an hour to complete, appeared to have a strong effect on students’ epistemological understanding,” Zavala explains.

“Everything possible should be done to encourage and support genuine discourse on critical issues, but our findings suggest that the virtual form of interaction we examined may be a productive substitute, at a time when positions on an issue far too often lack the deep analysis to support them,” Kuhn concludes.

всего слов - 648

В ответ на Евгений Волков

Imagining Dialogue Between Opposing Sides Boosts Critical Thinking

от Евгений Волков -

Imagining Dialogue Between Opposing Sides Boosts Critical Thinking

Imagining Dialogue Between Opposing Sides Boosts Critical Thinking

Imagining a controversial issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning, according to a new study published in the journal Psychological Science.

“Envisioning opposing views leads to a more comprehensive examination of the issue,” said psychology researcher Julia Zavala at Columbia University, first author of the study.

 

“Moreover, it impacts how people understand knowledge — constructing opposing views leads them to regard knowledge less as fact and more as information that can be scrutinized in a framework of alternatives and evidence.”

Many students, and even adults, have difficulty writing a persuasive or expository paper, as they are unable to consider challenges to their own perspective. Prior research has shown that peer-to-peer discussion can help students overcome these issues, but opportunities for these kinds of discussions are not always available.

The study assessed whether students could reap the benefits of this kind of dialogue in a solo writing assignment.

Zavala and study co-author Deanna Kuhn asked 60 undergraduates to participate in a one-hour writing activity. Some of the students were randomly assigned to create a dialogue between TV commentators discussing two mayoral candidates. The participants were given a list of important issues that the city was facing and a list of actions proposed by each candidate to solve these problems.

Other students were given the same information about the city and the candidates but were asked to write a persuasive essay highlighting the merits of each candidate instead. Finally, students from both groups were asked to write a script for a two-minute TV spot, promoting their preferred candidate.

After reading the writing samples, the researchers found that students who had constructed a dialogue included more distinct ideas in their writing than did participants who wrote an essay. Compared with the essays, the dialogues also included more statements that directly compared the two candidates and more statements that connected the city’s problems to the candidates’ proposed actions.

 

In the subsequent TV script, students who had previously written a dialogue made more references to city problems and to proposed actions, included more statements that linked a problem with an action, made more comparisons between the candidates, and offered more statements that were critical of the candidates’ positions, compared with students who had written an essay.

Notably, students in the dialogue group were also less likely to make claims in their TV script that lacked supporting evidence. Only 20 percent of students in the dialogue group made one or more unsubstantiated claims, compared with 60 percent of the students in the essay group.

“These results support our hypothesis that the dialogic task would lead to deeper, more comprehensive processing of the two positions and hence a richer representation of each and the differences between them,” said Kuhn.

“Everything possible should be done to encourage and support genuine discourse on critical issues, but our findings suggest that the virtual form of interaction we examined may be a productive substitute, at a time when positions on an issue far too often lack the deep analysis to support them.”

Findings from a another experiment revealed that students in the dialogue group also showed a more sophisticated understanding of knowledge. For example, some of the students in the essay group seemed to approach knowledge from an absolutist perspective — interpreting knowledge as a body of certain facts that exists apart from human judgment — none of the students in the dialogue group did so.

“The dialogue task, which took no more than an hour to complete, appeared to have a strong effect on students’ epistemological understanding,” said Zavala.

Source: Association for Psychological Science 

About Traci Pedersen

Traci Pedersen is a professional writer with over a decade of experience. Her work consists of writing for both print and online publishers in a variety of genres including science chapter books, college and career articles, and elementary school curriculum.

Read more articles by this author

APA Reference 
Pedersen, T. (2017). Imagining Dialogue Between Opposing Sides Boosts Critical Thinking. Psych Central. Retrieved on March 20, 2017, from https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/03/17/imagining-dialogue-between-opposing-sides-boosts-critical-thinking/117778.html

всего слов - 734

В ответ на Евгений Волков

Индивидуальный дискурс является продуктивной деятельностью / Solitary Discourse Is a Productive Activity

от Евгений Волков -

Young adults received information regarding the platforms of two candidates for mayor of a troubled city. Half constructed a dialogue between advocates of the candidates, and the other half wrote an essay evaluating the candidates’ merits. Both groups then wrote a script for a TV spot favoring their preferred candidate. Results supported our hypothesis that the dialogic task would lead to deeper, more comprehensive processing of the two positions, and hence a richer representation of them. The TV scripts of the dialogue group included more references to city problems, candidates’ proposed actions, and links between them, as well as more criticisms of proposed actions and integrative judgments extending across multiple problems or proposed actions. Assessment of levels of epistemological understanding administered to the two groups after the writing tasks revealed that the dialogic group exhibited a lesser frequency of the absolutist position that knowledge consists of facts knowable with certainty. The potential of imagined interaction as a substitute for actual social exchange is considered.

  Barzilai S.Weinstock M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141158Google Scholar CrossRef
  Billig M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, EnglandCambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  Chi M. T. H.Kang S.Yaghmourian D. L. (2016). Why students learn more from dialogue- than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1204546 Google Scholar CrossRef
  Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Read the standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/ Google Scholar
  Fisher M.Knobe J.Strikland B.Keil F. (2016). The influence of social interaction on intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/cogs.12380 Google Scholar CrossRef
  Graff G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven, CTYale University PressGoogle Scholar
  Graham S.McKeown D.Kiuhara S.Harris K. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879896Google Scholar CrossRef
  Greene J.Sandoval W.Braten I. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York, NYRoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  Grice H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Davidson D.Harman G. (Eds.), The logic of grammar (pp. 6475). Encino, CADickensonGoogle Scholar
  Hammer D.Elby A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5390Google Scholar CrossRef
  Jewett E.Kuhn D. (2016). Social science as a tool in developing scientific thinking skills in underserved, low-achieving urban students. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 143, 154161Google Scholar CrossRefMedline
  Kienhues D.Stadtler M.Bromme R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the Web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 193204Google Scholar CrossRef
  Kuhn D.Cheney R.Weinstock M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309328Google Scholar CrossRef
  Kuhn D.Crowell A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545552Google Scholar Link
  Kuhn D.Hemberger L.Khait V. (2016a). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing (2nd ed.). New York, NYRoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  Kuhn D.Hemberger L.Khait V. (2016b). Tracing the development of argumentive writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33, 92121Google Scholar Link
  Kuhn D.Moore W. (2015). Argument as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 6678Google Scholar CrossRef
  Kuhn D.Pennington N.Leadbeater B. (1983). Adult thinking in developmental perspective. In Baltes P.Brim O. (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (pp. 157195). New York, NYAcademic PressGoogle Scholar
  Kuhn D.Zillmer N.Crowell A.Zavala J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 456496Google Scholar CrossRef
  Leadbeater B.Kuhn D. (1989). Interpreting discrepant narratives: Hermeneutics and adult cognition. In Sinnott J. (Ed.), Everyday problem solving (pp. 175190). New York, NYPraegerGoogle Scholar
  Macagno F. (2016). Argument relevance and structure: Assessing and developing students’ uses of evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 180194. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.002 Google Scholar CrossRef
  Mead G. H. (1967). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, ILUniversity of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1934) Google Scholar CrossRef
  Moshman D. (2015). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth. New York, NYPsychology PressGoogle Scholar
  Muldner K.Lam R.Chi M. (2014). Comparing learning from observing and from human tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 6985Google Scholar CrossRef
  NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/ Google Scholar
  Resnick L.Asterhan C.Clarke S. (Eds.). (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DCAmerican Educational Research AssociationGoogle Scholar CrossRef
  Sandoval W. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98, 383387Google Scholar CrossRef
  van Eemeren F.Grootendorst R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  Vygotsky L. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Rieber R.Carlton A., Eds.). New York, NYPlenum. (Original work published 1937) Google Scholar
  Walton D. (2014). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam, The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins.Google Scholar
  Weinstock M.Cronin M. (2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 161181Google Scholar CrossRef

всего слов - 956