Inquiry and argumentation skill development work in conjunction

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Cognitive Development Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101464
Si Xiao, Deanna Kuhn
{"title":"Inquiry and argumentation skill development work in conjunction","authors":"Si Xiao,&nbsp;Deanna Kuhn","doi":"10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The argument and inquiry families of scientific thinking skills overlap. Yet they rarely are investigated together, with researchers instead focusing on one or the other. Here we hypothesize that inclusion of an additional intervention focused on inquiry will enhance the outcome of an established intervention known to be successful in developing argument skills, compared to the argument intervention alone. An Argument only (A) and an Argument and Inquiry (A&amp;I) group of young adolescents participated in one or the other of these intensive intervention groups for four hours daily over a two-week period. Both groups made progress in argument skills as expected, but the A&amp;I group showed greater gains in use of evidence to support claims, stronger forms of counterargument, and integrative <em>however</em> arguments that connect opposing claims to one another. The A&amp;I group showed a particular advantage in reconciling contrasting claims, an epistemological understanding that lies at the core of scientific thinking. These findings suggest the value of conceptualizing argument skill development in a broader framework that includes an investigative component as well as the skill of coordinating claims and evidence that is fundamental to argument.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51422,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201424000492","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The argument and inquiry families of scientific thinking skills overlap. Yet they rarely are investigated together, with researchers instead focusing on one or the other. Here we hypothesize that inclusion of an additional intervention focused on inquiry will enhance the outcome of an established intervention known to be successful in developing argument skills, compared to the argument intervention alone. An Argument only (A) and an Argument and Inquiry (A&I) group of young adolescents participated in one or the other of these intensive intervention groups for four hours daily over a two-week period. Both groups made progress in argument skills as expected, but the A&I group showed greater gains in use of evidence to support claims, stronger forms of counterargument, and integrative however arguments that connect opposing claims to one another. The A&I group showed a particular advantage in reconciling contrasting claims, an epistemological understanding that lies at the core of scientific thinking. These findings suggest the value of conceptualizing argument skill development in a broader framework that includes an investigative component as well as the skill of coordinating claims and evidence that is fundamental to argument.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探究与论证技能培养相结合
科学思维能力中的论证和探究系列是相互重叠的。然而,研究人员很少将它们放在一起研究,而是只关注其中之一。在此,我们假设,与单纯的论证干预相比,加入额外的以探究为重点的干预会增强已知能成功培养论证技能的既定干预的效果。一组青少年只参加论证(A),另一组青少年参加论证和探究(A&I),他们在两周时间里每天参加其中一个或另一个强化干预小组,每次四小时。两组在论证技能方面都取得了预期的进步,但 A&I 组在使用证据支持论点、更有力的反驳形式以及将对立论点相互联系起来的综合论证方面的进步更大。A&I组在调和对立主张方面表现出特别的优势,这是一种认识论理解,是科学思维的核心。这些研究结果表明,在一个更广泛的框架内对论证技能的发展进行概念化是有价值的,这个框架既包括调查成分,也包括协调主张和证据的技能,这是论证的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Cognitive Development contains the very best empirical and theoretical work on the development of perception, memory, language, concepts, thinking, problem solving, metacognition, and social cognition. Criteria for acceptance of articles will be: significance of the work to issues of current interest, substance of the argument, and clarity of expression. For purposes of publication in Cognitive Development, moral and social development will be considered part of cognitive development when they are related to the development of knowledge or thought processes.
期刊最新文献
Development of L1-L2 naming skills in a monolingual context: Evidence from children and adolescents Children’s perceptions of intergroup similarity and dissimilarity and their association with attitudes towards a conflict out-group The “How many?” task inadequately assesses the understanding of the cardinality principle The shape bias in Mandarin-exposed young autistic children: The role of abstract shape representation Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1