Abstract
We have been investigating the proposition that framing and developing debates about issues, concepts, methods, and theories is a general approach to learning. Instructors, of course, do use debating, but not typically as a pervasive or core activity in a course curriculum. And there are many examples of debate as an informal learning activity, such as debating teams and scientific debates. Indeed, framing debate as a core pedagogical activity can be traced to the Greeks, and the idea is central to modern dialectical constructivism. We have been developing this idea by (1) investigating instances of debating-for-learning practices in the wild, (2) supporting debate and dialectic in university classes with various kinds of tool support that we have appropriated or created, and (3) characterizing what is going on in debating-for-learning, and how students experience such approaches and outcomes. With respect to (1), we are studying the online debate community Kialo.com. The Kialo community addresses a wide range of topics and is actively developing community practices for dialectical knowledge collaboration. With respect to (2), we have investigated Piazza.com, Kialo.com, Canvas.com, and our purpose-built tool Critical Thinker as platforms for dialectical constructivist university courses. Our experiences help to articulate a design space of infrastructures and learning activities. With respect to (3), we reflect on our own lessons learned and try to identify research questions for future investigations. In this chapter, we pull together a series of prior papers with reports of recent/current work that is not yet published into an integrative essay format, identifying issues, approaches, and what we have learned about creating dialectics to learn.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aiden, E., & Michel, J.-B. (2014). Uncharted: Big data as a lens on human culture. New York: Riverhead Books.
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 315–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4.
Beck, J., Neupane, B., & Carroll, J. M. (2018). Managing conflict in online debate communities: Foregrounding moderators’ beliefs and values on Kialo. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cdfq7.
Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A handbook of methods. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carr, N. (2015). The glass cage: How our computers are changing us. New York: Norton.
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). A case library for teaching usability engineering: Design rationale, development, and classroom experience. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 5(1), Article 3, 1–22.
Carroll, J. M., Wu, Y., Shih, P. C., & Zheng, S. (2016). Re-appropriating a question/answer system to support dialectical constructivist learning activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 137–156.
Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in education research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cho, A. (2013, June 14). Network science at center of surveillance dispute. Science, 340(6138), 1272.
Cooner, T. S. (2005). Dialectical constructivism: Reflections on creating a web-mediated enquiry-based learning environment. Social Work Education, 24(4), 375–390.
Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183–194.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation. How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Herreid, C. F. (2004). Can case studies be used to teach critical thinking? Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 12–14.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.
Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.
Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.
Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 47–73.
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2013). The Upcycle: Beyond sustainability--designing for abundance. New York, NY: North Point.
Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2, 371–384.
O’Donnell, A. M. (2012). Constructivism. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 61–84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pavlidis, P. (2010). Critical thinking as dialectics: A Hegelian-Marxist approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(2), 74–102.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rakes, G. (1996). Using the internet as a tool in a resource-based learning environment. Educational Technology, 36(5), 52–56.
Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35.
Schreyer Honors College, Honors Courses description. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from https://www.shc.psu.edu/academic/courses/.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
Sun, N., Yuan, C. W., Rosson, M. B., Wu, Y., & Carroll, J. M. (2017, July). Critical thinker: Supporting collaborative argumentation with structure and awareness. In Proceedings—IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT (pp. 406–410). http://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2017.61.
Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vivian, R., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2013). Building consensus: Students’ cognitive and metacognitive behaviours during wiki construction. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering: LaTiCE 2013 (Macau, 21–24 March, pp. 154–161). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carroll, J.M., Sun, N., Beck, J. (2019). Creating Dialectics to Learn: Infrastructures, Practices, and Challenges. In: DÃaz, P., Ioannou, A., Bhagat, K., Spector, J. (eds) Learning in a Digital World. Smart Computing and Intelligence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8265-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8265-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8264-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8265-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)