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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Basseches, M., & Gruber, H. E. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development (Vol. 3). Norwood: Ablex.
Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Burge, J., Carroll, J. M., McCall, R., & Mistrik, I. (2008). Rationale-based software engineering. Dordrecht, Berlin: Springer.
Carr, K. S. (1988). How can we teach critical thinking? Childhood Education, 65(2), 69–73.
Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
Cho, A. (2013). Network science at center of surveillance dispute. Science, 340(6138), 1272.
Cooner, T. S. (2005). Dialectical constructivism: reflections on creating a web-mediated enquiry-based learning environment. Social Work Education, 24(4), 375–390.
Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183–194.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington: Heath.
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.
Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, E. M. (1985). Critical thinking: educating for responsible citizenship in a democracy. Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 65(1), 24–27.
Herreid, C. F. (2004). Can case studies be used to teach critical thinking? Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 12–14.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
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.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.
Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.
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.
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.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secutes, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.
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.
McChesney, R. W. (2013). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy. New York: The New Press.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2013). The upcycle: Beyond sustainability–Designing for abundance. New York: North Point Press.
Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (Eds.). (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. New York, NY: Routledge.
Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2(4), 371–384.
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.
Pavlidis, P. (2010). Critical thinking as dialectics: a hegelian-marxist approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(2), 74–102.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Rakes, G. (1996). Using the internet as a tool in a resource-based learning environment. Educational Technology, 36(5), 52–56.
Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.
Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 180.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage publications.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the Penn State Center for Online Innovation in Learning, by the NASA Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium, and by Piazza Technologies. We are grateful to Diana Zhang who helped to develop course materials.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carroll, J.M., Wu, Y., Shih, P.C. et al. Re-appropriating a question/answer system to support dialectical constructivist learning activity. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 137–156 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9405-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9405-6