zillmer proposal

The Role of Metacognitive The Role of Metacognitive Collaborative Talk in Developing Collaborative Talk in Developing

Argument SkillArgument Skill

Nicole Zillmer Nicole Zillmer Teachers CollegeTeachers College

Columbia UniviersityColumbia Univiersity

Focus on ArgumentationFocus on ArgumentationCommon Core: Common Core:

Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons, Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons, evidence, distinguish from opposing claimsevidence, distinguish from opposing claims

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

Reasonable expectation?Reasonable expectation?Research by Felton (2004), Kuhn and colleagues (2008, Research by Felton (2004), Kuhn and colleagues (2008,

2013) 2013) Practice, practice, practice in dialogic argumentationPractice, practice, practice in dialogic argumentation

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)

Transfer to individual written Transfer to individual written argumentation argumentation

Practice, practice, practicePractice, practice, practiceSupports 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?

Microgenetic ResearchMicrogenetic Research

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 I can use, and I know when to apply itcan 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

Development along two dimensionsDevelopment along two dimensions

Skill- and metacognitive levels develop Skill- and metacognitive levels develop interdependentlyinterdependentlyFelton (2004): Verbal reflection with a partner increased Felton (2004): Verbal reflection with a partner increased

likelihood of counterargument strategy at postlikelihood of counterargument strategy at postShaenfield (in preparation): More metacognitive talk with Shaenfield (in preparation): More metacognitive talk with

partner led to greater gains in counterargument skillpartner led to greater gains in counterargument skill

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

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

How is it helpful? What are conversational partners How is it helpful? What are conversational partners doing that aids each one’s development? doing that aids each one’s development?

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

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

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

Proposed StudyProposed StudyParticipants Participants

N=63N=63

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

Proposed StudyProposed StudyKuhn’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 computer, Six sessions of paired argumentation (on computer,

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

debatedebate

Proposed StudyProposed StudyProposed study uses data collected during Topics 2 &3 Proposed study uses data collected during Topics 2 &3

of Year 2of 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 sessions Half worked with same partner for all 6 paired sessions

(STAY)(STAY)Half worked with a different partner for each of the 6 Half worked with a different partner for each of the 6

paired sessions (SWITCH)paired sessions (SWITCH)

Proposed StudyProposed Study

Differences in metacognitive conversation depending Differences in metacognitive conversation depending on length of time students spend together, on length of time students spend together, developing skills? developing 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 Do specific types of meta-talk benefit skill development more than other types?development more than other types?

FrameworksFrameworks

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

FrameworksFrameworksVygotskyan perspective: Vygotskyan perspective:

Power of language in development: interiorization of Power of language in development: interiorization of interactions with anotherinteractions 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.

FrameworksFrameworksVygotskyan perspective during our study:Vygotskyan perspective during our study:

Two partners developing skills at once: bi-directional Two partners developing skills at once: bi-directional ZPDZPD

With 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 alone.metacognitive space greater than either has alone.

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

FrameworksFrameworksPrior research on children’s problem solving Prior research on children’s problem solving

Over time, talk focuses less on surface-level, more on Over time, talk focuses less on surface-level, more on regulating behaviorsregulating behaviors

Collaborative 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

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 change directional ZPD, we would expect that ZPD to change form as students internalize regulatory talk. form as students internalize regulatory talk.

Specifically…Specifically…

HypothesesHypothesesIn 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 about talk, relative to talk about the topic, than in the Switch condition.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?

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:


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!


If we do NOT find differences between Stay and Switch If we do NOT find differences between Stay and Switch conditions in amount or reciprocity of regulatory talk …conditions in amount or reciprocity of regulatory talk …

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.


Table 4: Confl ict 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.


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

HypothesesHypothesesIndividual Metacognitive Reflection Assignment

Students evaluate an argument between two pairs. Do students focus on surface features (e.g., spelling, grammar), on verity of claims, or on function of each claim relative to the claim prior?

Is engagement in conflict predictive of higher performance, supporting the Piagetian perspective?

HypothesesHypothesesQuality of pairs’ online (typed) arguments: Does engagement in conflict predict a greater proportion of counterargument?

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)

ConclusionConclusionHypotheses supporting Vygotskyan:Hypotheses supporting Vygotskyan:

H1: Stay condition will feature conversations with more H1: Stay condition will feature conversations with more metacognitive talk than Switchmetacognitive talk than SwitchH2: Stay condition will feature conversations with more H2: Stay condition will feature conversations with more regulatoryregulatory metacognitive talk than Switch metacognitive talk than SwitchH3: Meta-level discussion will be longer in Stay than SwitchH3: Meta-level discussion will be longer in Stay than SwitchH4: Students in Stay may show higher performance on H4: Students in Stay may show higher performance on reflection assignmentreflection assignmentH5: Pairs in Stay may produce more counterarguments than H5: Pairs in Stay may produce more counterarguments than pairs in Switchpairs in Switch

ConclusionConclusionHypotheses supporting Piagetian:

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)

zillmer proposal

Education