Chapter 15 page 353
Student A likely to learn more?Pair #3
Student A: I’m not sure about this one: “ ‘There are many examples of panic and frenzy
in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.’ Is this acceptable as a thesis statement?
Student B: I’d say it’s not, because that’s not even an arguable claim. I don’t think there’s
a single person who read the book who would disagree with that.
Student A: Oh, so that’s what she meant when she talked about thesis statements. OK.
Now, we have two more questions.Pair #4
Student A: Here’s the next question. Is this acceptable as a thesis statement?
Student B: I don’t think so. It’s not arguable at all. There are so many obvious examples
in the play that no one could disagree with that.
Student A: Oh, so that’s what she meant by arguable. So I can ask myself whether just
about everyone would agree with a statement, and if they would, if no one
would really disagree with the statement, you can’t use it as a thesis
statement. So what would be arguable is something like stating that someone
was most to blame, or like that. OK. Now, we have two more questions.Response: Although there are some interesting differences between each pair of
dialogues, a crucial difference in each pair is whether Student A either re-explains or
applies the material. Only in Pairs #2 and #4 does Student A try to apply or re-explain the
explanation that he or she has just heard. In Pairs #1 and #3, Student A states that he or
she understands but does not take the next step to apply or say the ideas out loud in his
or her own words. In Pair #2, Student A decides to try out what was learned on a new
problem. In Pair #4, Student A paraphrases the explanation that Student B gave. In both
Pairs #2 and #4, Student B shows good uptake (applying or re-explaining an idea) that is
likely to enhance learning.Discussing ideas. Let’s now look more closely at one of the three types of responses from Table
15.2—the discussion response. The discussion response is particularly valuable because it engages
students in extended elaboration of ideas that they are studying. Two modes of discussion are critiquing
ideas and co-constructing ideas. Critiquing ideas refers to presenting ideas that challenge a peer’s ideas
in some way. It is closely related to presenting alternative perspectives. Co-constructing ideas occurs
when one student adds to a peer’s ideas in a way that the ideas become more elaborated or complex,
without any overt disagreement.
An example of critiquing ideas comes from a study by learning scientists Randi Engle and Faith
Conant (2002, pp. 425-426). Students were discussing criteria for distinguishing between dolphins and
other whales. The class had visited Marine World, where a trainer had implied that dolphins had dorsal
fins, whereas other whales do not.
Toscan: Do dolphins have a dorsal fin?
Brian: No, no. ...
Toscan: No they don’t. Flat. [starts to gesture back
and forth horizontally]
Jonah: Yeah, they do, see? [holds up book and
shows a picture]
Toscan: And they have- [ pause] okay.
Å Jonah effectively critiques Toscan’s and Brian’s
claim simply by displaying a picture.
Å Toscan responds to the critique by changing his mind.