published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Philosophy

This study evaluated the comprehension of inference statements by language-learning disabled (LLD) children and children with normal language development (NL) under two conditions: uncontextualized and contextualized. The contextualized condition was designed to encourage retrieval of information from the subject's general knowledge — a procedure proposed to encourage elaborative inference-making. Two text passages were analyzed according to a model developed by Trabasso and presented by Trabasso, van den Broek & Suh (1989), which yielded a set of bridging causal connections across clause units. Sets of three true and three false causal inference statements were developed to represent bridging inferences for each story. In addition, three true and three premise statements were obtained directly from each story, yielding a total of twelve statements for each text. Subjects were ten language-learning disabled students (7 boys, 3 girls) and ten children with normal language development (5 boys, 5 girls) aged 9 to 11 years old. Mean age for children in both groups was 10 years, 4 months. Children were selected for the LLD group on the basis of the following criteria: (1) enrollment in a learning assistance or learning resource program for learning-disabled students, preferably for remediation of Language Arts; (2) history of speech-language intervention in preschool or early primary grades; (3) normal nonverbal cognitive skills; (4) lexical and syntactic comprehension within normal abilities (as determined by standardized language tests for the LLD group); (5) native English speaker and (6) normal hearing ability. Every subject received both stories and conditions. Story presentation and condition were counterbalanced across 8 of the 10 subjects in each group; condition only was counterbalanced across the remaining two subjects in each group. Inference and premise statements were randomized; each random set was randomly presented to each subject. Items were scored correct or incorrect. Subjects were also asked to answer open-ended wh-questions. Responses were compared and analyzed using a nonparametric statistical method appropriate for small sample sizes. Results indicated significant differences between the LLD and the NL groups on the number of correct responses to inference and premise items. Both groups scored significantly worse on inference than premise items. Analysis did not indicate that the LLD group scored significantly worse on inference items than the NL group did. Results also suggested that a contextualization effect operated for both groups, which affected the retention of premise items but acted to improve scores on inference items. This effect was seen most notably for the LLD group. / Medicine, Faculty of / Audiology and Speech Sciences, School of / Graduate

Although converging evidence indicates that argumentive thinking and writing are best promoted by collaboration with others, it is still unclear which instructional approaches exert most benefits. The present study builds on the success of using a dialogic approach to develop argumentation skills in middle school students. The key component of the approach used here is the creation of an adversarial classroom setting in which students engage deeply in dialogic argumentation, which is viewed here as a process involving two or more individuals who hold opposing views. In dialogic argumentation, the focus of students’ attention will tend to center on the discursive goals of strengthening their own positions and weakening the position of the opponents. These goals of discourse ensure that students not only exercise supporting their claims with reasons and evidence but also practice making and responding to critiques, which is said to promote students’ mastery of the argument-counterargument-rebuttal structure. While the literature describes compelling advantages of dialogic approaches, it also reports valid concerns. A main concern is that during dialogic argumentation arguers have diverging goals of advancing their own positions, which may prevent the integration of opposing arguments. In an attempt to explore whether this disadvantage can be minimized, the present study examines whether the addition of a collaborative writing activity, as a form of peer argumentation that draws students’ attention towards a converging goal, to the dialogic curriculum provides students a further degree of support in developing their argumentive writing skills. It is hypothesized that collaborative writing would serve as a bridge between dialogic and individual argumentation by changing the focus of students’ attention from the adversarial to the collaborative dimensions of argumentation. To examine this hypothesis, two classes of sixth grade students participated in a month-long intervention that promoted deep engagement in dialogic argumentation on a series of challenging topics. Groups differed only with respect to participation in collaborative writing. Analysis of individual essays on the final intervention topic indicates that students who participated in collaborative writing showed gains relative to students who didn’t in coordinating evidence with claims, specifically in drawing on evidence to make claims that are inconsistent as well as consistent with their favored positions. On a transfer topic, students in the collaborative writing condition continued to surpass students in the individual writing condition; however, the gains were restricted to drawing on evidence to make claims that are consistent with the students’ favored positions. The results support the claim that the combination of adversarial and collaborative forms of peer argumentation in classroom instruction is a promising path for developing middle school students’ argumentive writing skills. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Thesis (MTech (Education))--Peninsula Technikon, Cape Town, 2004. / The purpose of this research was to investigate the practices, understanding and application of critical thinking in the lives of learners, educators and parents. The research was conducted in the grade seven classes of three schools in the Western Cape. These schools are representative of the demography of the Western Cape. Initial questionnaires were sent to parents of the grade seven learners in this study to determine whether the home environment encourages critical thinking and whether or not the parents practice critical thinking in their home and personal lives. An interview was conducted with the 8 teachers of each grade seven class at the three schools, to determine their understanding of critical thinking, whether they use critical thinking in their personal capacity, and whether they nurture and teach critical thinking. Each learner completed a questionnaire to determine his or her knowledge and understanding of critical thinking, prior to teaching and learning interventions. The interventions occurred through a series of teaching/learning activities, and participative action research to facilitate the learning, understanding and application of critical thinking. Data was obtained from observation throughout intervention as well as from a final questionnaire at the end of the teaching/ learning activities. The data collected was analysed and the results and recommendations form part of this thesis. The results clearly indicated that it is possible to foster critical hoped that teachers' awareness of the need to teach and foster critical thinking in the classroom was aroused by this intervention. thinking through teaching and learning interventions. It also became evident that the influence of learners' home life plays a major role in children's thinking practices. It is hoped that teachers' awareness of the need to teach and foster critical thinking in the classroom was aroused by this intervention. / Peninsula Technikon

No description available.

Covariational reasoning is a cognitive activity that attends to two or more varying quantities and how their changes are related to each other. Previous studies indicate that covariational reasoning seems to have levels. Content analysis was used to examine the pedagogy and development of covariational reasoning levels in the sections that conceptually introduce derivatives in four calculus textbooks. One widely used calculus textbook was selected for the study in each of the four categories: U.S. college, U.S. high school, China college, and China high school. Two qualified investigators and I conducted the study. We used a framework of five developmental levels for covariational reasoning. The conceptual analysis of four calculus textbooks found that the U.S. college and the U.S. high school textbooks emphasize the average and instantaneous rate of change. However, both lack development of the direction and magnitude of change. On the other hand, this study's Chinese high school calculus textbook has a greater degree of development in the direction and magnitude of change while having a deficit in the average rate of change. This study's Chinese college calculus textbook does not have any meaningful development regarding covariational reasoning pedagogy. The relational analysis of the concepts previously identified in the conceptual analysis phase revealed that this study's U.S. college calculus textbooks provide abundant examples and exercises to transition between the average and instantaneous rate of change. On the other hand, all other calculus textbooks in this study lack any significant transition among passages that stimulate covariational reasoning. The textbook analysis in this study provides insights into the current focus of calculus textbooks in both the U.S. and China. In addition, the study has implications for learning and teaching calculus at both high school and college, as well as future editions of calculus textbooks. Finally, limitations and recommendations are discussed.

The ability to design controlled, unconfounded experiments in order to test hypotheses via the Control of Variables Strategy (CVS) is fundamental to all scientific reasoning and inquiry, considered a cornerstone of critical thinking as a whole which enables individuals to make valid causal inferences (Kuhn, 2005a). CVS is considered so crucial to science and science education, in fact, that various scientific and governmental agencies a have begun including it in student curricula, such as the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012), Benchmarks for science literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993), and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013). However, despite its unique power and flexibility as a cognitive tool and its centrality to the entire architecture of scientific inquiry, most children do not spontaneously develop use of CVS without some form of instruction or scaffolding. According to the National Academy of Sciences (1995), students of various ages still have difficulty manipulating variables and conceptualizing controlled experiments. Thus, a significant amount of research effort has gone into the examination of the circumstances under which the learning and transfer of CVS is best supported. One such avenue has been within the realm of embodied cognition. Embodied cognition is a concept in Cognitive Science which suggests people create mental perceptual simulations of concepts in order to understand them (Barsalou, 2004; Morrison and Tversky, 1997; Martin, 2007). In the realm of CVS research, the computerization of instructional and assessment materials has met with some success. Klahr, Triona, and Williams (2007), for example, found virtual training tasks in CVS to be equally effective as training tasks with real physical equipment, a result replicated by Smetana & Bell (2012), as well as Triona & Klahr, 2003). Nonetheless, even in these studies, the virtual tasks undertaken by students appear to largely be an extension of a classroom lecture, merely replicating the experience of a physical task without taking advantage of the more unique qualities of the medium. Black (2014) found strong evidence for the potential of video games as perceptually rich grounding environments for embodied learning. Further, significant literature exists establishing the beneficial impacts of game-based learning on motivation and engagement (e.g. Rigby & Przybylski, 2009; Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Malone, 1981). This study combines these two streams of research by investigating the impact of an interactive simulation game on scientific reasoning skills, specifically effective use of CVS. It seeks to know the impact of game-based learning on scientific reasoning skills and engagement with science, as well as whether structured or unstructured access to an interactive narrative simulation game has a differential impact on immediate learning and retention after a delay following formal instruction. Students were randomized into three groups—two with unstructured and structured access to the game and a control group and given tests of scientific reasoning at baseline, immediately following the training phase, and a week thereafter. They then took two surveys on their science engagement and game experience, the latter of which also included submitting a record of their thoughts and reactions while playing the game. The study found significant effects of group on all measures, with the game groups outperforming the control, and the unstructured group showing the strongest performance in the post-study test while the structured play group performed the most poorly in the retention test. The unstructured group also showed the highest level of intrinsic motivation, as well as higher self-determination and self-efficacy than the structured playing group in the science engagement survey. The dissertation begins with an establishment of a theoretical framework and literature review before going on to discuss the study and game design in detail. Results and implications are discussed in depth.

Learning via apprenticeship is widely regarded as a powerful mechanism. To examine the role of apprenticeship learning and practice in developing argumentive thinking and writing, young adolescents (n = 64) participated in a four-week dialogic argumentation activity. They drew on available evidence and engaged 20 daily sessions in one-to-one electronic dialogues on contemporary social issues, anonymously, with a series of opposing-side partners. To assess the proposition that adolescents' argumentation skill advances via apprenticeship with a more skilled partner, in an experimental (but not control) discourse condition, a skilled adult arguer replaced a peer in half of the dialogues. Effects on students were evaluated in the dialogue and individual writing contexts. In the dialogue context, performance in initial peer dialogues during the first day of the workshop and in a final dialogic assessment on a new topic were evaluated. In the individual writing context, performance on the last workshop-debate-topic essay and non-workshop-debate topic essay were evaluated. Data were analyzed according to previously identified and well-validated coding schemes on counterargument and argument strategies. Although all participants showed skill gains, students in the experimental condition advanced in argumentive reasoning more rapidly than those in the peer-only control condition. Specifically, the strongest counterargument strategy (counter-undermine) appeared in greater proportions of idea units in the dialogues of students in the experimental condition, compared to those in the comparison condition. Only “weaken-other” improvements in dialogue reached significance in transferring to essays. These findings extend upon and support previous work on the power of dialogic engagement and engagement with more competent others as a mechanism of apprenticeship learning. Pedagogical and social implications are discussed.

Learning, and potentially thought itself, is an inherently social process, whether directly from other humans, such as teachers, parents, or mentors, or indirectly from the artifacts other humans create. However, the social nature of the learning process doesn't come without its social learning, as opposed to cognitive learning, challenges. Sometimes we disagree with, offend, or otherwise harm one another in the learning process, or simply don't know one another enough to engage with and understand each other. How does social development, and specifically the development of dyadic teacher-student relationships impact individuals' learning processes? Here, I apply a multivariate time-series approach to understand how teacher-student dyads, randomly assigned to partners they know or have never met, differ in their nonverbal communication behavior, and how these differences impact student learning processes. Through a custom-built online portal, open-source computer vision software, and a newly-derived state-of-the-art multivariate time series analysis, I show how teacher-student dyads from an undergraduate institution benefit from familiarity, nonverbal coordination, and their development, and how this development improves students' scientific reasoning performance. I also show how the degree of nonverbal coordination that enables high performance in the reasoning tasks develops over as little as 10—15 minutes of dedicated face-to-face interaction. Three implications of the work are highlighted. First, the results imply that social interaction processes are crucial to individual reasoning in face-to-face online contexts. Second, a potentially necessary route to improving STEM education at the undergraduate level may be more dedicated face-to-face time between students and their instructors. Finally, the step-by-step guide provided by the work to apply multivariate techniques to non-stationary diachronic processes illuminates the value of combining evolutionary correspondence analysis with locally stationary vector autoregression. The combination of methods reduces the complexity of high-dimensional datasets to explanatory latent factors, and then quantifies the linear predictability of each original dimension on all of the others within each explanatory latent factor. In the current analysis, I identify familiarity and affect-attention tradeoff effects as the two most explanatory latent factors, and quantify how both familiarity, and the tradeoff between affective and attentive signalling between the dyads evolves over the course of 20-25 minute teacher-student interactions. Thus, beyond the implications for dyadic reasoning and STEM learning processes, the methodological implications could be applied to any high-dimensional diachronic processes, such as two bodies, or brains, interacting in other teacher-student contexts, as well as parent-child, therapist-client, and manager-employee environments in order to simplify the complexity of social interactions and uncover their impacts on individual change processes.

Scientific inquiry in K-12 classrooms tends to be procedural, lacking opportunities for students to gain understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed through reflection, debate, and argument. Limited opportunity to develop scientific argumentation skills prevents students from practicing the scientific thinking needed to understand the nature of scientific knowledge and the role of scientific inquiry. To solve this problem in science education, recent research has focused on how to support student opportunities to learn scientific argumentation in the context of learning science content. The purpose of this investigation was to examine and analyze one science teacher's understanding of scientific argumentation and his teaching strategies for developing students' argumentation skills in the classroom. This investigation also analyzed student discourse in response to those teaching strategies, to see how students demonstrate improved scientific thinking skills while they developed skills in scientific argumentation. One science teacher, Mr. Field, and his students at the middle school level participated in this study for two months. Three interviews employing semi-structured protocols were used to examine Mr. Field's understanding of scientific argumentation. A structured observational protocol enhanced with field notes and audio tape recordings were employed to investigate Mr. Field's teaching strategies that led students to demonstrate scientific thinking skills. Transcriptions of student discourse and two lab reports were also analyzed for the quality of students' scientific thinking skills. Three different tools for argument analysis, Toulmin, Epistemic Operation, and Reasoning Complexity, were used to examine student argumentation in detail. The teacher, Mr. Field, defined scientific inquiry as the combination of developing procedural skills through hands-on activities and reasoning skills through argumentation. Seven different teaching strategies emerged based on sixty hours of classroom observation. Daily Science and the Claim-Evidence Approach were the two main teaching strategies that gave students opportunities to demonstrate the reasoning skills needed to construct scientific knowledge. However, students developed less extended arguments during Daily Science, whose purpose was to provide them with a chance to practice basic skills, such as differentiating independent variables from dependent. On the other hand, students developed more extended arguments during the Claim-Evidence Approach, where the purpose was to provide students with opportunities to develop claims, to find evidence from experiments to support the claims or refute those of others, and to discuss the limitation of the experiments. The less extended argumentation observed during these activities is described as a linear flow, moving from Mr. Field's question to students' answers to Mr. Field's evaluation at the end. The more extended argumentation can be described as a circular flow, moving from Mr. Field's question, to students' answers, to Mr. Field's evaluation with more prompts or questions, to students' responses as justification, to Mr. Field's general explanation based on students' justification, and finally to the teacher's or students' synthesis or applications. The former argumentation is named Fundamental Argumentation and the latter Exploring Argumentation. Fundamental Argumentation occurred more often than the other during this study. Shifting from Fundamental Argumentation to Exploring Argumentation was observed to depend on the teacher's scaffolding, such as using more extended questions and prompts to further the discussion. In addition, the students' abilities to develop scientific argumentation were related to their scientific knowledge, the teacher's engagement in interacting with students, and the opportunities students had to practice scientific argumentation. Limited scientific knowledge is believed to prevent students from demonstrating reasoning skills. Also, "wait time" that students need to retrieve knowledge, described by Mr. Field, is also believed to be one of the barriers to scientific argumentation in some of Mr. Field's classroom interaction. Further investigation of students' abilities to develop scientific argumentation in different contexts, such as group work and whole class discussion, is recommended with the use of the argument analysis tools employed in this study, in order to better understand the nature of learning and teaching scientific argumentation in the classroom. / Graduation date: 2006