Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 137–156 | Cite as

Re-appropriating a question/answer system to support dialectical constructivist learning activity

  • John M. Carroll
  • Yu Wu
  • Patrick C. Shih
  • Saijing Zheng
Development Article

Abstract

Learning can be engaged by dialectic, that is, by identifying pros and cons that inhere in propositions, and more generally, by raising questions about the validity of claims. We report here on a classroom case study of dialectical constructivist pedagogy: Students created dialectical analyses of two lectures and four books as core activities in a freshman seminar “Information, People and Technology”. We adapted the functionality of Piazza, a free wiki-style question–answer course management infrastructure, and Toulmin argumentation structures to organize and facilitate these dialectical learning activities. In this paper, we motivate this approach, describe our implementation of it, and present interaction log data and content analysis of Piazza debates, and analysis of student self-reflections on learning activity and consequences, to assess issues in this approach, and directions for further instructional design and research.

Keywords

Dialectical constructivism Critical thinking Scaffolding Piazza 

References

  1. Basseches, M., & Gruber, H. E. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development (Vol. 3). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  2. Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Burge, J., Carroll, J. M., McCall, R., & Mistrik, I. (2008). Rationale-based software engineering. Dordrecht, Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr, K. S. (1988). How can we teach critical thinking? Childhood Education, 65(2), 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. M. (2014). Immersive learning. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Innovative practices in teaching information sciences and technology: Experience reports and reflections (pp. 157–166). New York, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, J. M., Jiang, H., & Borge, M. (2015). Distributed collaborative homework activities in a problem-based usability engineering course. Education and Information Technologies, 20, 589–617.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). A case library for teaching usability engineering: Design rationale, development, and classroom experience. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 5(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho, A. (2013). Network science at center of surveillance dispute. Science, 340(6138), 1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooner, T. S. (2005). Dialectical constructivism: reflections on creating a web-mediated enquiry-based learning environment. Social Work Education, 24(4), 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington: Heath.Google Scholar
  14. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Glaser, E. M. (1985). Critical thinking: educating for responsible citizenship in a democracy. Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 65(1), 24–27.Google Scholar
  17. Herreid, C. F. (2004). Can case studies be used to teach critical thinking? Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 12–14.Google Scholar
  18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secutes, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. New York: Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  26. McChesney, R. W. (2013). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  27. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2013). The upcycle: Beyond sustainability–Designing for abundance. New York: North Point Press.Google Scholar
  28. Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (Eds.). (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2(4), 371–384.Google Scholar
  30. O’Donnell, A. M. (2012). Constructivism. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 61–84)., Theories, constructs, and critical issues Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  31. Pavlidis, P. (2010). Critical thinking as dialectics: a hegelian-marxist approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(2), 74–102.Google Scholar
  32. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Rakes, G. (1996). Using the internet as a tool in a resource-based learning environment. Educational Technology, 36(5), 52–56.Google Scholar
  34. Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vivian, R., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2013). Building consensus: Students’ cognitive and metacognitive behaviours during wiki construction. Proceedings of the learning and teaching in computing and engineering: LaTiCE 2013 (Macau, 21–24 March, pp. 154–161), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Carroll
    • 1
  • Yu Wu
    • 1
  • Patrick C. Shih
    • 2
  • Saijing Zheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Human–Computer Interaction and College of Information Sciences and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information and Library ScienceIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations