Communication between the patient and the physician in clinical encounters has traditionally been considered a passive interaction on the side of the patient, whereby the healthcare provider examines the patient's condition and circumstances, evaluates the situation, and prescribes a certain treatment plan or procedural solution that will heal the patient's ailment. However, recent research and fundamental communications understanding strongly emphasizes that effective communication is a two-way endeavor that ideally should involve input and insight from both sides of the conversation. Treating all clinical interactions as a one-way didactic experience where a provider usually goes through a checklist of commonalities would seem to not approach the same level of patient satisfaction and understanding as active mutual participation employing common conversational and argumentative techniques by both sides of the patient-physician dyad. The Conversational Argument Coding Scheme, presented by Canary et al., was implemented in a slightly modified format to code transcripts of clinical encounters in a college setting. It was demonstrated that clinical encounters employing more forms of conversational argumentation did not statistically correlate to increased ratings of patient satisfaction/knowledge, but did not harm these ratings in a significant manner. This could be due to the limitation that the study was conducted with a patient population consisting entirely of enrolled college students on campus, implying a greater degree of health literacy and education level that highlights that a presence or lack of teach-back or other mutual participation would not significantly affect patient satisfaction/knowledge in the clinical encounter. Further research needs to be conducted to prove this correlation, but as of now, it would be in good practice and in good faith for healthcare providers to employ teach-back or to encourage mutual participation and conversation in their clinical encounters.

Tidigare forskning framhåller undervisning utifrån samhällsfrågor med naturvetenskapligt innehåll (SNI) som ett verktyg för att främja naturvetenskaplig allmänbildning, medborgarbildning och elevers förmåga att delta i praktiker utanför skolan där argumentation och diskussion lyfts som centrala undervisningsformer. Även i styrdokument kan incitament för att bedriva en SNI-undervisning med inslag av diskussion och argumentation urskiljas. Dock visar tidigare studier att lärare ställs inför flertalet olika utmaningar vid implementering av SNI-undervisning bland annat kopplat till diskussioner inom denna undervisning. Den egna studien syftar till att undersöka och kartlägga lärares upplevelser kring arbetet med diskussioner och argumentation i SNI-undervisningen. Arbetet avgränsar sig till att undersöka erfarenheter hos biologilärare på gymnasiet. Data insamlades genom semistrukturerade intervjuer som genomfördes med hjälp av ljudinspelning. Urvalet av deltagare i studien var målstyrt med avseende på att biologilärare som indikerades arbeta med SNI i sin undervisning efterfrågades. Deltagarna utgjordes av tre lärare från olika skolor i Stockholm med omnejd. Deltagarna fick ta del av ett informations- och samtyckesbrev som formulerades utifrån samtyckeskravet, konfidentialitetskravet, informationskravet och nyttjandekravet. Insamlad data transkriberades och analyserades enligt ramverket för tematisk analys. Den tematiska analysen resulterade i tre huvudteman Vad kan SNI-undervisning ge eleverna?, Utmaningar med SNIundervisning och Förutsättningar för en givande SNI-undervisning som beskriver lärares erfarenheter kring SNI-undervisningen i allmänhet. Under respektive huvudtema kunde även underteman urskiljas som berörde lärares erfarenheter kring diskussion och argumentation i SNI-undervisningen. Resultaten visar bland annat på lärares erfarenheter att elever genom diskussion och argumentation kring SNI kan erhålla en vidgad repertoar av perspektiv samt en ökad förmåga att ta ställning och agera i en samhällskontext, där bland annat skilda åsikter och elevers utbyten beskrivs som viktiga faktorer i detta. Analysen visade även på olika förutsättningar för att bedriva SNI-undervisning med inslag av diskussion och argumentation. Resultaten visar bland annat på vikten av ett tryggt klassrumsklimat och att ge eleverna en struktur i och verktyg för diskussion kring komplexa frågor. Studien visar både direkta utmaningar som lärare ställs inför i diskursiva aktiviteter i SNI-undervisningen men även potentiella utmaningar för elever där bland annat komplexiteten i SNI beskrivs.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Syftet med studien är att undersöka vilka konsekvenser en pandemiinitierad (covid-19)distansundervisning i muntlig argumentation har medfört i en årskurs 3 klass på gymnasiet. Det är en kvalitativ undersökning som har genomförts med en lärarintervju, fyra elevintervjuer och två observationer för att komplettera varandra. Resultatet visar att intervjuerna med lärare och elever bekräftar varandra, likväl som observationerna. Slutsatsen av studien är att det finns fler nackdelar med distansundervisningen än vad det finns fördelar.

Current reform efforts, which aim to improve the mathematics abilities of American citizens, call for mathematics instruction that emphasizes sense making, reasoning and argumentation. This study was conducted to understand the outcomes of Collaborative Reasoning, a reform-oriented instructional strategy, in seventh and eighth grade mathematics classrooms. An embedded, quasi-experimental, mixed-methods design was used to investigate: the effects of Collaborative Reasoning on students' mathematics performance, and the ways in which students' reasoning abilities change as a result of participating in Collaborative Reasoning. The quantitative results revealed statistically significant changes in mathematics performance from pre-test to post-test. Post-test analysis showed a statistically significant difference in assessment scores, with the treatment group out-performing their comparison group peers. The qualitative results of the study show that as a result of participating in Collaborative Reasoning sessions, students were choosing reasoning strategies that were more appropriate, were using appropriate reasoning strategies more consistently, and were better able to verbally explain their reasoning. Finally, it was found that as students participate in Collaborative Reasoning their discourse becomes less calculational and more conceptual in nature, and more students become active participants within small group discussions. / Math & Science Education

As the nature of work significantly transforms over the next several decades, engineering students today will play a major role in building and developing society. Both industry and academia position critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities as central to the growing needs of developed and developing societies. Consequently, engineers will be paid in the future to solve complex problems. ABET (2021) standards indicate these ill-structured problems or complex engineering problems involve multiple factors outside of standard building codes or equations. Complex or socioscientific problems have no obvious solution pathway, multiple perspectives, and require a well-reasoned and argued solution. Thus, ill-structured problems emerge from situated and societal contexts in which various aspects of the context or problem space are undefined, unspecified, uncertain, or as Chen et al. (2019) describe, 'fuzzy'. Novice learners struggle with the inherent uncertainty embedded at all stages of the problem-solving process. Students need opportunities to grapple with the challenges of real-world problems, including the inherent uncertainties associated with them. In problem-solving situations learners often reject or avoid uncertainty and associated feelings of discomfort because traditional education provides few opportunities to confront these uncertainties in problem solving. Evidence suggests uncertainty becomes a productive or constructive experience when learners are forced to express, contend, grapple with, argue, and negotiate how and what they know with others. Thus, generation of uncertainty, or productive uncertainty, in problem-solving situations facilitates management of ambiguity and complexity through argumentation to, in turn, foster well-informed, confidently argued and supported solutions. The purpose of this study was to develop a framework to guide designers/instructors to facilitate learning using argumentation as a pedagogical tool to manage uncertainty. / Doctor of Philosophy / Work is changing across industries, and students today will play a major role in building the world of tomorrow by solving complex problems. Therefore, industry and education position critical thinking and problem-solving skills as crucial to developing an innovative workforce to prosper in the future. Moreso, engineers will play a major role in using critical thinking and problem-solving skills to solve complex problems. Essentially, engineers will be paid to solve these pressing problems. Complex problems, also known as socioscientific problems, are extremely uncertain - having no apparent solution, requiring multiple perspectives, and arriving at a feasible solution under constraints. Additionally, complex problems are impacted by multiple effects associated with cultural and social contexts, making these problems increasingly more 'fuzzy' or uncertain. Because uncertainty is a key part of complex problem solving, students need chances to grapple with these problems and unavoidable uncertainty, which is too often avoided. Uncertainty creates feelings of discomfort which learners seek to avoid or reduce. However, evidence indicates uncertainty can also be used productively. If students can embrace or learn to work within uncertainty, they can learn to argue, negotiate, reason, and solve problems more effectively. The act of collaboratively arguing, reasoning, sharing perspective, or negotiating (argumentation as a process) holds promise as an overarching practice which allows students to confront and manage uncertainty in problem solving. Therefore, this study aimed to position argumentation as a teaching tool to foster and manage productive moments of uncertainty while solving complex problems. The study resulted in a taxonomy of uncertainty sources and management strategies, and cognitive guidelines for designers and educators to use argumentation as a process to promote and manage uncertainty while learning to solve complex problems.