Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

From Dialectical Theory to Reflective Practice: Response to Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert

From Dialectical Theory to Reflective Practice: Response to Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY 42 {Winter 2006): 169-174 FROM DIALECTICAL 'IHEORY TO REFLECTIVE PRACTICE: RESPONSE TO HUNT, MEYER, AND LIPPERT by Leah E. Polcar Even contradiction-oriented argumentation scholars probably would agree that the teach­ ing of argumentation {debate, critical thinking) has important effects on the eventual success of our students {see, for example, Bruffee, 1992;Jackson, 2002; Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Zeidler, 1997). While I welcome any attempt to improve teaching practices and outcomes {as, I'm sure, do all "chalk and talk" teaching advocates [see Sellnow, 2006]), Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert's {2006) underlying justification for treating field-dependent and field-indepen­ dent cognitive styles as the key to improvement seems to me to be theoretically lacking. Although Sellnow also makes this point, she is concerned primarily about insufficient justification for Hunt et al.'s preference for Witkin's {1978) model. I agree but would suggest, further, that simply defending this model against other learning/cognitive styles still would miss the point. Although there may be reasons why Witkin's system is preferable to, say, cognitive complexity or a simple measure of IQ, to my mind Hunt et al.'s results reveal that learning outcomes are not hampered {or improved) primarily by student learning styles but, instead, by http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation and Advocacy Taylor & Francis

From Dialectical Theory to Reflective Practice: Response to Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert

Polcar, Leah E.
Argumentation and Advocacy , Volume 42 (3): 6 – Jan 1, 2006
Download PDF

From Dialectical Theory to Reflective Practice: Response to Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert

Abstract

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY 42 {Winter 2006): 169-174 FROM DIALECTICAL 'IHEORY TO REFLECTIVE PRACTICE: RESPONSE TO HUNT, MEYER, AND LIPPERT by Leah E. Polcar Even contradiction-oriented argumentation scholars probably would agree that the teach­ ing of argumentation {debate, critical thinking) has important effects on the eventual success of our students {see, for example, Bruffee, 1992;Jackson, 2002; Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Zeidler, 1997). While I welcome any attempt to...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/from-dialectical-theory-to-reflective-practice-response-to-hunt-meyer-HX5ZCWmm70
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2006 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2576-8476
eISSN
1051-1431
DOI
10.1080/00028533.2006.11821650
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY 42 {Winter 2006): 169-174 FROM DIALECTICAL 'IHEORY TO REFLECTIVE PRACTICE: RESPONSE TO HUNT, MEYER, AND LIPPERT by Leah E. Polcar Even contradiction-oriented argumentation scholars probably would agree that the teach­ ing of argumentation {debate, critical thinking) has important effects on the eventual success of our students {see, for example, Bruffee, 1992;Jackson, 2002; Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Zeidler, 1997). While I welcome any attempt to improve teaching practices and outcomes {as, I'm sure, do all "chalk and talk" teaching advocates [see Sellnow, 2006]), Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert's {2006) underlying justification for treating field-dependent and field-indepen­ dent cognitive styles as the key to improvement seems to me to be theoretically lacking. Although Sellnow also makes this point, she is concerned primarily about insufficient justification for Hunt et al.'s preference for Witkin's {1978) model. I agree but would suggest, further, that simply defending this model against other learning/cognitive styles still would miss the point. Although there may be reasons why Witkin's system is preferable to, say, cognitive complexity or a simple measure of IQ, to my mind Hunt et al.'s results reveal that learning outcomes are not hampered {or improved) primarily by student learning styles but, instead, by

Journal

Argumentation and Advocacy – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 2006

References

  • Science in a postmodern world
  • Students' perspectives on debate exercises in content area classes
  • Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles
  • Implications of students' cognitive styles for the development of argumentation skills
  • Disputation by design
  • Designing argumentation protocols for the classroom
  • Identification and adaptation to students' preinstructional beliefs in introductory communication research methods: Contributions of interactive web technology
  • Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics
  • Cooperative learning returns to college
  • Effects of didactic interaction in argumentative reasoning
  • Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments
  • Two concepts of argument
  • Moving the debate about argumentation pedagogy to the next level: Response to Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert
  • Synthesis of research on cooperative learning
  • The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation
  • The central role of fallacious thinking in science education