Zillmer proposal final1

Exploring The Role of Collaborative Exploring The Role of Collaborative Meta-Talk in the Development of Meta-Talk in the Development of

Argument Skill and UnderstandingArgument Skill and Understanding

Nicole Zillmer Nicole Zillmer Teachers CollegeTeachers College

Columbia UniversityColumbia University

1

Focus on ArgumentationFocus on Argumentation

Common Core: Common Core: Write arguments to support claims with clear Write arguments to support claims with clear

reasons, evidence, distinguish from opposing reasons, evidence, distinguish from opposing claimsclaims

Verbally present Verbally present ownown claims; delineate and claims; delineate and evaluate evaluate othersothers’ arguments’ arguments

Reasonable expectation?Reasonable expectation?Research by Felton (2004), Kuhn and colleagues Research by Felton (2004), Kuhn and colleagues

(2008, 2013) (2008, 2013) Practice, practice, practice in dialogic Practice, practice, practice in dialogic

argumentationargumentation

2

Practice, practice, practicePractice, practice, practice

Adolescents engage in series of arguments with one another

With practice, more likely to employ counterargument strategy (Felton, 2004; Kuhn et. al, 2008)

Increased references to evidence (Kuhn & Moore, in prep)

Transfer to individual writing task (Kuhn & Crowell, 2011)

3

Supports not only acquisition of skills (e.g., Supports not only acquisition of skills (e.g., counterargument), but also recognition that these are counterargument), but also recognition that these are strategies that meet the goals of verbal and written strategies that meet the goals of verbal and written argumentation.argumentation.

……Why don’t we all develop naturally?Why don’t we all develop naturally?

Practice, practice, practicePractice, practice, practice

4

Development along two Development along two dimensionsdimensions

Learners choose varying strategies over time; trial Learners choose varying strategies over time; trial and errorand error

Develop mastery atDevelop mastery at

Skill level Skill level (counterargument, evidence use)(counterargument, evidence use)

Metacognitive levelMetacognitive level: Counterargument is a : Counterargument is a strategy strategy I can use, and I know when to apply itI can use, and I know when to apply it

Individuals’ opportunities to engage are varied in Individuals’ opportunities to engage are varied in quality and densityquality and density

5

Skill and metacognitive levels develop interdependentlySkill and metacognitive levels develop interdependentlyFelton (2004): Verbal reflection with a partner Felton (2004): Verbal reflection with a partner

increased likelihood of counterargument strategy at increased likelihood of counterargument strategy at postpost

Shaenfield (in preparation): More metacognitive talk Shaenfield (in preparation): More metacognitive talk with partner led to greater gains in counterargument with partner led to greater gains in counterargument skillskill

Verbal reflection with a partner facilitates gainsVerbal reflection with a partner facilitates gains

Development along two Development along two dimensionsdimensions

6

The role of shared “meta-talk”The role of shared “meta-talk”

Framework for understanding how meta-talk Framework for understanding how meta-talk functions in development of argument skill? functions in development of argument skill?

What kinds of meta-talk particularly helpful?What kinds of meta-talk particularly helpful?

What contexts might be supportive?What contexts might be supportive?

7

Proposed StudyProposed Study

Explore role of pairs’ meta-talk talk during argument Explore role of pairs’ meta-talk talk during argument constructionconstruction

Compare two potential frameworksCompare two potential frameworks

Uses data from two-year study conducted by Kuhn Uses data from two-year study conducted by Kuhn and colleagues (2013): Paired argumentation (dyad and colleagues (2013): Paired argumentation (dyad versus dyad)versus dyad)

8

Participants Participants

N=62N=62

77thth graders, NYC public magnet school graders, NYC public magnet school

Most Black, HispanicMost Black, Hispanic

In second year of Kuhn’s argument curriculumIn second year of Kuhn’s argument curriculum


9

Kuhn’s two-year curriculumKuhn’s two-year curriculum

Two periods a week led by TC doctoral studentTwo periods a week led by TC doctoral student

Over academic year, introduced 4 argument topicsOver academic year, introduced 4 argument topicsDivided into opposing sidesDivided into opposing sidesThree sessions of small group work on reasonsThree sessions of small group work on reasonsSix sessions of paired argumentation (on Six sessions of paired argumentation (on

computer, dyad against dyad)computer, dyad against dyad)Three sessions of small group work, then classwide Three sessions of small group work, then classwide

debatedebate


10

Proposed study uses data collected during Topics 2 Proposed study uses data collected during Topics 2 &3 of Year 2&3 of Year 2

Used to working with same partner over 6 paired Used to working with same partner over 6 paired argument sessionsargument sessions

We We revised conditions revised conditions of Topics 2 & 3.of Topics 2 & 3.Half worked with same partner for all 6 paired Half worked with same partner for all 6 paired

sessions (STAY)sessions (STAY)Half worked with a different partner for each of the Half worked with a different partner for each of the

6 paired sessions (SWITCH)6 paired sessions (SWITCH)


11

Differences in metacognitive conversation depending Differences in metacognitive conversation depending on length of time students spend together, developing on length of time students spend together, developing skills? skills?

Do differences by condition suggest a framework for Do differences by condition suggest a framework for understanding the function of metacognitive talk in understanding the function of metacognitive talk in developing skill?developing skill?

Do specific types of meta-talk benefit skill development Do specific types of meta-talk benefit skill development more than other types?more than other types?


12

FrameworkFramework

Vygotskyan perspective: Vygotskyan perspective:

Power of language in development: interiorization Power of language in development: interiorization of interactions with anotherof interactions with another

Adopt regulating language as private speech, Adopt regulating language as private speech, internalize as thoughtinternalize as thought

Two conversants form a zone of proximal Two conversants form a zone of proximal development (ZPD). As development progresses, development (ZPD). As development progresses, behavior of both conversants must change.behavior of both conversants must change.

13

Vygotskyan perspective during our study:Vygotskyan perspective during our study:Two partners developing skills at once: bi-Two partners developing skills at once: bi-

directional ZPDdirectional ZPDWith regulatory language, scaffold each other’s With regulatory language, scaffold each other’s

understanding of argument norms, holding a understanding of argument norms, holding a metacognitive space greater than either has metacognitive space greater than either has alone.alone.

Nature of interaction should reflect Nature of interaction should reflect development, with features of conversation development, with features of conversation changing over course of engagement.changing over course of engagement.

FrameworkFramework

14

Prior research on children’s problem solving Prior research on children’s problem solving Over time, talk focuses less on surface-level, more Over time, talk focuses less on surface-level, more

on regulating behaviorson regulating behaviorsCollaborative talk increasingly reciprocalCollaborative talk increasingly reciprocal

Research in Kuhn lab (2013)Research in Kuhn lab (2013)Examined online (typed) arguments Examined online (typed) arguments Increasingly regulatory, focused on norms of Increasingly regulatory, focused on norms of

argumentation – even before significant skill argumentation – even before significant skill improvementimprovement

Increasingly reciprocalIncreasingly reciprocal

FrameworkFramework

15

HypothesesHypotheses

If role of collaborative meta-talk is to provide a bi-If role of collaborative meta-talk is to provide a bi-directional ZPD, we would expect that ZPD to directional ZPD, we would expect that ZPD to change form as students internalize regulatory change form as students internalize regulatory talk. talk.

Specifically…Specifically…

16

In the Stay condition, we would expect to see more In the Stay condition, we would expect to see more episodes of episodes of metacognitivemetacognitive talk, relative to talk talk, relative to talk about the topic, than in the Switch condition.about the topic, than in the Switch condition.

Table 1: Topic talk versus Meta-talk

Topic Talk I think Obama is a good president because he’s created jobs.

China could survive without the one child policy.

Meta-talk I don’t think we have any evidence for that.

What could we possibly write?


17

Table 2. Types of Metacognitive Talk

Evaluating What you said made no sense.

That’s a bad counter.

Interpreting That’s exactly what they’re saying, which is not true.

This sounds like a hypothesis.

Planning How can we improve our argument?

Can we catch them for an unwarranted assumption?

Directing Partner or Team

You need to ask them for their evidence.

Let’s just review the argument that we posted.

Regulate Self I’m trying to concentrate.

I think I can use the same evidence.

Solicit Help I’ll write this, okay? That good?

What evidence would you get for …

In Stay, we would expect to see more meta-talk that seeks to regulate the pair’s activity:

18

Expect conversations in Stay to feature longer, more Expect conversations in Stay to feature longer, more reciprocal metacognitive episodes.reciprocal metacognitive episodes.

Table 3: Metacognitive Episode

Student A Yeah, so right now we’re going to respond to them. So what should we say?

Student B I’m thinkin.’ Let’s see the evidence questions.

Student A Let’s see the evidence questions.

Student B But we also have to find an evidence to prove our saying

Student A I know – Question 24!


19

Quality of pairs’ online (typed) arguments: Do arguments associated with Stay condition feature a greater proportion of counterarguments?

Table 4: Metacognitive Episode

Student A We think that China shouldn’t have a one child policy because the couples should be able to decide for themselves. In other words, democracy rules!

Student B We think there should be because there are many problems associated with overpopulation. (Expository statement)

Student B China is not a democracy (Counter)


20

Individual Metacognitive Reflection Assignment: Does engagement in Stay lead to greater focus on functional quality of claims, as opposed to surface features of argument (e.g., spelling, grammar) or verity of claims?


Read each statement and assign it a grade (A,B,C,D, or F). How well did this student do when they made their claim? Be specific; do not just say “I gave this an A because it was good.” Tell us how you know the statement is good or bad.

Words Grade

Explanation

The one child policy shouldn’t be used because even though the population has decreased it’s still increasing by a lot according to evidence question 2.

As you can see in ev number 3 before the one child policy the population increased from 540m to 800m

But it is still increasing as I said before (read evidence 2)

Exactly so that is why we should keep the law because in ev 21 it says 80% of people who die in china each year from disease.

21

What if we don’t find differences between Stay and What if we don’t find differences between Stay and Switch conditions in amount or reciprocity of regulatory Switch conditions in amount or reciprocity of regulatory talk, or in performance on our secondary measures?talk, or in performance on our secondary measures?

Consider alternative (Piagetian) framework for Consider alternative (Piagetian) framework for understanding the role of meta-talk in developing understanding the role of meta-talk in developing argument skill.argument skill.


22

An Alternative FrameworkAn Alternative Framework

Piagetian: cognitive conflictPiagetian: cognitive conflict

Strategies, ideas about strategies meet with Strategies, ideas about strategies meet with disequilibrating feedback disequilibrating feedback

Cognitive reconstruction within individualCognitive reconstruction within individual

Metacognitive talk focused on disagreement Metacognitive talk focused on disagreement regarding strategies may have most impact on regarding strategies may have most impact on developing skillsdeveloping skills

23

Table 4: Conflict or Negative Evaluation

Example 1:

Student A You’re helping them.

Student B No … I said that … how is that helping them?

Student A That is helping them.

Example 2:

What you just said doesn’t make any sense.

First, examine conversations for episodes of negative evaluation or conflict.

An Alternative FrameworkAn Alternative Framework

24


Is engagement in episodes of conflict associated Is engagement in episodes of conflict associated with higher performance on either of our two with higher performance on either of our two secondary measures?secondary measures?

25

ConclusionConclusion

Hypotheses inspired by Vygotskyan perspective:Hypotheses inspired by Vygotskyan perspective:

H1: Stay condition will feature conversations with H1: Stay condition will feature conversations with more metacognitive talk than Switchmore metacognitive talk than Switch

H2: Stay condition will feature conversations with H2: Stay condition will feature conversations with more more regulatoryregulatory metacognitive talk than Switch metacognitive talk than Switch

H3: Meta-level discussion will be longer in Stay than H3: Meta-level discussion will be longer in Stay than SwitchSwitch

H4: Students in Stay may show higher performance on H4: Students in Stay may show higher performance on reflection assignmentreflection assignment

H5: Pairs in Stay may produce more counterarguments H5: Pairs in Stay may produce more counterarguments than pairs in Switchthan pairs in Switch

26

ConclusionConclusionHypotheses inspired by Piagetian perspective:

H6: Frequency of disagreement/conflict will be correlated with higher individual performance on reflection assignment.

H7: Frequency of disagreement/conflict will be correlated with higher dyadic performance within online argument task (e.g., higher proportion of counterarguments)

27

Education

Zillmer proposal final1