Abstract
Decades of research have proven that many misconceptions of scientific notions are difficult to uproot even after intensive instructional interventions. In this paper we examine the role of argumentation and of explanation development in dyadic dialogues and their relation to consequential individual conceptual change. Two quantitative dialogue coding schemes were developed with different granularity: The first assessed the interlocutors' dialog moves during the discussion that pertained to argumentation and explanation development. The second scheme characterized the dialogue as a whole on a number of social and socio-cognitive dimensions. The results emphasized the critical role of engagement in dialectical argumentation for conceptual change, whereas explanation development and validation was not related to learning gains. This finding may explain why instructional interventions are too often insufficient to uproot robust misconceptions. The methodological implications for the study of conceptual change, as well as the practical implications for designing for productive argumentation are discussed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 60-67 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL |
| Issue number | PART 1 |
| State | Published - 2008 |
| Event | International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a Learning World - 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, ICLS 2008 - Utrecht, Netherlands Duration: 23 Jun 2008 → 28 Jun 2008 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This research was supported by a CONACYT grant for doctorate studies (559379/296765) and constitutes part of the doctoral thesis of VMVM in the PhD Program in Natural Sciences UAEM. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.