Abstract
Traditionally, we define a literate person as somebody who knows how to read, write and calculate. In other words, the literate person is able to handle the signs and symbols used by the society in which she lives. However, this definition is fuzzy. What do we mean by knowing how to read? Do we mean knowing how to decipher the meaning of canonical texts that teachers have themselves constructed or accepted from people who have been invested the authority to give the exact meaning of texts (writers of teaching materials for example)? Indeed, teachers’ written guides often give pedagogical advice how to analyze texts, to extract the main idea: the role of the reader is then to reconstruct a meaning (see Kintsch’s situation model, 1986). Also, when students analyze a text, their objective is generally not more than to comply with the demands of a curriculum, that is (in general) to master skills. However, while literacy definitely involves analytical skills, confining it to a series of skills is far too restricted, and puts aside contextual factors in literacy. As noticed by Olson (1994), in opposition to children’s oral propensity to identify speech acts in conversation, when interpreting written signs they have difficulties to identify their illocutionary force. In other words, children may have difficulties in reading partly because they don’t know for which purpose the texts with which they are presented with were written. The approach to literacy we adopt here conveys the versatility that any literate human must exhibit, to be able to communicate actions through different modes and to negotiate them. This practically means that the literate human should express actions in various modes such as reading or writing, with flexible motives such as clarifying an issue, presenting, demonstrating, defending, or convincing.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andriessen, J. and Coirier P. (1999). Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam University Press.
Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., and et al. (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133–162 ). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and Arguing. The social Organization of Accounts. Sage Publication.
Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In J. Andriessen, P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam University Press.
Baker, M. (2002). Computer-Mediated Argumentative Interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. This volume.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Christensen C., and Elstein, S. (1991). Informal Reasoning in the Medical Profession. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, and J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education (pp. 17–35 ). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coirier, P., Andriessen, J. and Chanquoy, L. (1999). From Planning to Translating the Specificity of Argumentative Writing. In J. Andriessen, P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam University Press.
Davenport, P. and Howe, C. (1999). Conceptual gain and successful problem-solving in primary school mathematics. Educational Studies, 25, 55–78.
Davenport, P., Howe, C., and Noble, A. (2000). Peer interaction and the coordination of knowledge. Swiss Journal of Educational Sciences, 22(3), 481–508.
Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept Discovery in a Scientific Domain. Cognitive Science,/7(3), 397–435.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring Science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York, Columbia University: Teachers College Press
Duschl, R. A., and Gitomer, D.H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 839–858.
Duschl, R. A., and Hamilton, R. (1992). Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice. Suny Series in Science Education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hershkowitz, R., and Schwarz, B. B. (1999). Reflective processes in a technology-based mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 66–91.
Kedem, O. (1999). “Temporarily Definitive”. The planning, development, production and educational implementation of a series of films and its effects on Students’ conceptions and views regarding the Nature of Science. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Kintsch, W. (1986). Learning From Text. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, Learning, and Instruction pp(25–46). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D (1993). Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking skills. Scientific Education, 77, 319–337.
Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
Means, M. L. and Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–179.
Meichtry, Y..J. (1993). The Impact of Science Curricula on Students Views About the Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 429–443.
Meyer, K. and Woodruff, E. (1997). Consensually driven explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 81, 173–92.
Ohlsson. S. (1992). The cognitive skill of theory articulation: A neglected aspect of science education. Science and Education, 1, 181–189.
Olson, D. (1996). The World on paper. Cambridge University Press.
Orsolini, M., (1993). “Dwarfs do not shoot”: An Analysis of Children’s Justifications. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 and 4), 281–297.
Orsolini, M., and Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children’s talk in classroom discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 113–136.
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., and Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, and J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education (pp. 83–105 ). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparisons of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77, 261–278.
Pontecorvo, C. and Girardet, H., (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and instruction, 11(3 and 4), 365–395.
Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., and Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and instruction, 11(3 and 4), 347–364.
Rogoff, B., and Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50 (10) 859–877.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 235–276.
Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31–57.
Schwarz, B. B., Benaya, L. and Shemaya, H. (2001). Symmetry and Learning in Argumentation Among Peers. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Communication, Problem-Solving and Learning, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Schwarz, B. B., and Hershkowitz, R. (1995). Argumentation and reasoning in a technology-based class. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 731–735, Pittsburgh, PA.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y. and Biezuner, S. (2000). Two “wrongs” may make a right…If they argue together! Cognition andInstruction, 18(4), 461–494.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y. and Gil, J., and Ilya, M. (2002). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2).
Songer N., and Linn, M (1991). How Do Student’s Views of Science Influence Knowledge Integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 761–796.
Staudinger, U. M., and Joos, M. (2000). Interactive Minds — A paradigm for the study of the social-interactive nature of human cognition and its life-span development. Swiss Journal of Educational Sciences, 22(3), 559–574.
Stein, N., and Miller, C.A. (1991). twin.., you lose: the development of argumentative thinking. In J. F. Voss, D.N. Perkins and J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and Instruction (pp. 265–290 ). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stein, N., and Miller, C.A. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology~Vol. 4 (pp. 235–285). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Suthers. D. (2002). This volume.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tweney (1991). In J. Voss, D Perkins, and J. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Bruggen, J. M. and Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. This volume.
Voss, J. F. (1991). Informal Reasoning and International Relations.. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, and J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education (pp. 37–58 ). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, T. and Schooler, J. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181–192.
Woodruff, E. and Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra-and inter-group discourse: students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27 (1), 25–39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schwarz, B.B., Glassner, A. (2003). The Blind and the Paralytic: Supporting argumentation in Everyday and Scientific Issues. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Suthers, D. (eds) Arguing to Learn. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6320-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0781-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive