Analyzing and authoring arguments

Argumentation is a skill area I think is underdeveloped in students. It is not that they don’t argue, it is that their arguments function in the manner recent political arguments in this country go. Folks talk louder and repeat themselves, but seldom offer evidence to support claims or understand clearly the claims and evidence offered by others with a different point of view.

For educators interested in this topic I recommend a book written by Deanna Kuhn and colleagues

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with Me: Argument as a Path to Developing Students’ Thinking and Writing.

If you are not interested in taking on another book, here is an article form ASCD offering some ideas to get educators started.

For example – learn to differentiate claims from evidence and to identify when claims are made without evidence. Find an article on the use of smartphones in the classroom. Have students highlight claims in one color and evidence in another color. In the margins, identify the type of evidence used – facts, statistics, statements from interviews, etc. Identify the author’s conclusions and how the claims and evidence were related to this conclusion. Are claims made without evidence? Ask students to address the general conclusion, claims, and evidence of the author. Are there shortcomings that can be identified? Are counterclaims possible and what would they be?

Have students write their own position on this topic attempting to both offer supporting claims and evidence and identify counterclaims that can be refuted.

Argumentation is at the core of many important areas. The research conducted by scientists is an attempt to provide evidence in support of a claim and possibly counter a claim made by others. Argumentation is present in many other areas as well. Developing argumentation skills offers a way to practical way to practice critical thinking.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Analyzing and authoring arguments

CROWDLAAERS

CROWDLAAERS (crowd layers) is an online tool for examining the annotation data generated by Hyposthes.is. Hypothes.is is a tool for highlighting and annotating online pages as an individual or as a member of a group. CROWDLAAERS, a service developed and maintained by Francisco Perez and Remi Kalir, allows researchers or educators to examine the annotations attached (I call this layering) to web pages – what were the initial comments, what was the context to which the annotations were attached, what were the replies to the original annotations, etc.

These data are available by entering the URL [red box below] for the annotated page into CROWDLAAERS.

If you are unfamiliar with public (or group) annotation, I would recommend a web page I have developed that explains what I call layering and offers examples of tools for layering (Hypothes.is is included). My concept of layering is broader than annotation and includes other additions to content such as highlighting, inserted questions, and inserted discussion invitations.

My interest in layering has been focused on the use within a given class, but some of the applications also include public annotation of important documents (e.g., the platforms of the Presidential candidates in the 2016 election). You might imagine how different individuals would have different things to say about such documents. You probably also imagine how a tool like CROWDLAAERS might be useful in examining these comments.

My interest is more in how layering tools might be used by teachers and students. As more and more educators abandon traditional textbooks and make use of freely available web content, the opportunity to add elements that modify the original content into an instructional resource has great potential. The additions of students for each other and as a by-product of their content processing that might be examined by a teacher also has potential value.

Just to be clear, these additions to an existing web page are not actually part of the page and are not available unless one is using a tool designed to add these elements. Because these additions are separate from the original content, I use the concept of layering to describe this type of service.

CROWDLAAERS is described in a useful post by Kalir and Perez and their description of applications should also be useful if my comments have encouraged further examination.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on CROWDLAAERS

Citizen (student) science

This story from the local paper (Star Tribune) describes the identification of animals located through the use of a trail camera. What is described here could easily be adapted by a class with some type of access to an area holding wildlife. It would be best if students could position the camera because that is part of the challenge, but the teacher could also position the camera and allow the students to take the pictures off the memory card.

This happens to be an activity I have applied on our own lake property. Most of the pictures we get are of deer, but I have also photographed turkeys, rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, and grey fox.

Here are a couple of photos I just took off the memory card.

Of course many photos are partial or poorly exposed. This can make identification more difficult. Here is my most unusual capture.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Citizen (student) science

Layering guidance (update)

This is my second update. This one was encouraged because it exemplifies an existing post that might confuse readers if rediscovered. In this case because a service, DocentEDU, has been renamed as InsertLearning.

I have been thinking about a way to support learners processing of online content. I have decided to describe this as layering guidance. I like the physical imagery of adding information on top of information with the intent of guiding a learner. I decided this concept applies to a number of services educators can utilize. in the video that follows, I attempted to use Hypothes.is and DocentEDU to demonstrate what I mean.

   

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Layering guidance (update)

Google Alerts (revisited)

I week or so ago I generated a post reacting to the claim that successful bloggers updated their posts. This was kind of a revelation to me. In fact, in continuing to think about this I think I remember a time when some argued you were supposed to use “strike through” and similar signals much like lawyers do to show when you changed a post. I think the logic was that people who linked to your work wanted to be able to count on their reading of what you said. Times change.

Anyway, the notion of reposting returned to me when I recently read a post aimed at educators that was a simple tutorial on using Google Alerts to follow a specific issue/topic. I remembered that I had written a similar tutorial and educators who now find the new post of value would have been very unlikely to have read what I first read about the same topic. Since few would think to search a blog for information (the focus of my previous post), perhaps reposting content that changes little would be a reasonable thing to do.

Here is my post on Google Alerts from 2013.

I have just discovered Google Alerts. These settings establish searches and periodically send you the results via email (or RSS if you prefer). This tactic works well if there are specific topics you find important and you want to know when anything new appears online or in journals (Google Scholar).

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Google Alerts (revisited)

Change is coming

The government, when it eventually gets around to meeting, will likely implement legislation that will address online privacy. I think both parties feel the need, possibly for different reasons, to respond to public concerns.

You have organizations such as the Association of National Advertisers pushing for their version of national privacy law. Of course, business interests have a particular perspective on things, but this national organization feels pushed into backing something because individual states are taking action and this makes it complicated for concerns that would find it very difficult to meet inconsistent standards from one location to another. The Internet is not sensitive to geographic boundaries.

A reasonable use of data might be, in the ANA’s view, the collection and use of non-sensitive data for advertising purposes, so long as consumers are given transparency, notice and choice.

Of course, this would be what I think we have now and it assumes that we all read the terms of service when we sign up for social media. Getting approval for such a position would overrule state positions with more specific expectations.

John Battelle, speaking for us old tech folks, claims we brought this on ourselves. We bought into an idealistic view based on the early days of Web 2.0 and failed to track the inevitable pressure of business models. Failure to see what was emerging was certainly the case for those without an early interest in technology who at some point discovered what seemed like free services. According to Battelle, you can’t blame Facebook even though Facebook might be the poster child for the privacy backlash. The companies that have emerged, whether purposefully or not, have created a situation that defies innovation and is influencing the entire economy.

We have created a situation in which government has to become involved as is the case when things get out of hand and it is no longer possible to depend on fair competition to find good solutions.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Change is coming