Creating Dialectics to Learn: Infrastructures, Practices, and Challenges
- 782 Downloads
We have been investigating the proposition that framing and developing debates about issues, concepts, methods, and theories is a general approach to learning. Instructors, of course, do use debating, but not typically as a pervasive or core activity in a course curriculum. And there are many examples of debate as an informal learning activity, such as debating teams and scientific debates. Indeed, framing debate as a core pedagogical activity can be traced to the Greeks, and the idea is central to modern dialectical constructivism. We have been developing this idea by (1) investigating instances of debating-for-learning practices in the wild, (2) supporting debate and dialectic in university classes with various kinds of tool support that we have appropriated or created, and (3) characterizing what is going on in debating-for-learning, and how students experience such approaches and outcomes. With respect to (1), we are studying the online debate community Kialo.com. The Kialo community addresses a wide range of topics and is actively developing community practices for dialectical knowledge collaboration. With respect to (2), we have investigated Piazza.com, Kialo.com, Canvas.com, and our purpose-built tool Critical Thinker as platforms for dialectical constructivist university courses. Our experiences help to articulate a design space of infrastructures and learning activities. With respect to (3), we reflect on our own lessons learned and try to identify research questions for future investigations. In this chapter, we pull together a series of prior papers with reports of recent/current work that is not yet published into an integrative essay format, identifying issues, approaches, and what we have learned about creating dialectics to learn.
KeywordsDialectic argumentation Critical thinking Classroom technology
- Aiden, E., & Michel, J.-B. (2014). Uncharted: Big data as a lens on human culture. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
- Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 315–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beck, J., Neupane, B., & Carroll, J. M. (2018). Managing conflict in online debate communities: Foregrounding moderators’ beliefs and values on Kialo. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cdfq7.
- Carr, N. (2015). The glass cage: How our computers are changing us. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). A case library for teaching usability engineering: Design rationale, development, and classroom experience. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 5(1), Article 3, 1–22.Google Scholar
- Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in education research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
- Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation. How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Herreid, C. F. (2004). Can case studies be used to teach critical thinking? Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 12–14.Google Scholar
- McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2013). The Upcycle: Beyond sustainability--designing for abundance. New York, NY: North Point.Google Scholar
- 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: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 61–84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Pavlidis, P. (2010). Critical thinking as dialectics: A Hegelian-Marxist approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(2), 74–102.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Rakes, G. (1996). Using the internet as a tool in a resource-based learning environment. Educational Technology, 36(5), 52–56.Google Scholar
- Schreyer Honors College, Honors Courses description. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from https://www.shc.psu.edu/academic/courses/.
- Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Sun, N., Yuan, C. W., Rosson, M. B., Wu, Y., & Carroll, J. M. (2017, July). Critical thinker: Supporting collaborative argumentation with structure and awareness. In Proceedings—IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT (pp. 406–410). http://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2017.61.
- Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Vivian, R., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2013). Building consensus: Students’ cognitive and metacognitive behaviours during wiki construction. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering: LaTiCE 2013 (Macau, 21–24 March, pp. 154–161). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
- 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