The ability to apply knowledge in various situations is very important for learners. According to constructivism epistemology in education, this competence is also important for purposes of transfer of learning in situations (Park, Lim, Lee, & Che...
The ability to apply knowledge in various situations is very important for learners. According to constructivism epistemology in education, this competence is also important for purposes of transfer of learning in situations (Park, Lim, Lee, & Cheo. 1999). However, Yoo(2012) mentions that Korean students are passive in classes that demand learners' participation and positive responses. In particular, although elementary school curricula are designed with the goal of developing understanding of real life and using knowledge and problem-solving skills(Lim et al., 2011), the knowledge to be acquired is significantly broad and learners find it difficult to consider knowledge-used conditions(Cheo, 2014). Thus, it is necessary to improve learners’ cognitive flexibility for application of knowledge in different situations and with varying methods.
In this research, argumentation instructional method is applied to improve learners' cognitive flexibility, the ability to apply their knowledge to changeable situations in real life. Argumentation instructional method provides learners with various representations of performing diverse activities within the classroom learning environment, in which they have to think flexibly. From this aspect, the purpose of this research is to draw the principles of argumentation instruction for enhancing cognitive flexibility, to develop the argumentation instructional model, and to examine validation of the model. In addition, for development of the argumentation instruction model for improving cognitive flexibility, the argumentation instruction process suggested by Kuhn et al. (2013) is modified, taking into account the Korean elementary school environment and principles for enhancing cognitive flexibility. The research questions are the following; first, what are the principles of argumentation instruction for improving cognitive flexibility?; second, what is the model of argumentation instruction for improving cognitive flexibility?; third, is the argumentation instructional model for improving cognitive flexibility valid?
The research method is based on Richey & Klein's (2007) design and development research method. First, a literature review was conducted to develop the principles of argumentation instruction for enhancing cognitive flexibility. In addition, the result of the literature review was applied to the Kuhn et al. (2013) argumentation instruction process, and the initial model of argumentation instruction was developed. After the development of the first argumentation instructional model, the internal and external validity were examined for validation of the model. The internal validity test was conducted twice by educational technology experts who completed the doctoral course and elementary school teachers who had teaching experience exceeding five years. The external validity test was conducted with the modified argumentation instruction model, implemented in an elementary school class and consisting of six lessons. In these argumentation classes, the researcher identified the change in level of cognitive flexibility and the effect of the model with a cognitive flexibility survey and writing test before and after the classes. Also, after the classes, the researcher identified the strengths, weaknesses, and improvement points of the model with the learners’and the teachers' response assessments.
In the research review, the components and principles of argumentation and cognitive flexibility were drawn. The principles were analyzed synthetically and the researcher developed the argumentation instruction principle. The principles of argumentation instruction for improving cognitive flexibility are as follows: 1) principle of diversity (diversity of materials, diversity of situations, diversity of perspectives, diversity of representations), 2) principle of integrity (integrity of materials, integrity between materials and perspectives, integrity of perspective and situation, integrity of perspectives), 3) principle of authenticity (authenticity of materials, authenticity of situation, authenticity of perspective, authenticity of representation), 4) principle of interaction (interaction among learners, interaction between learners and contents, interaction between learners and teachers). Based on these principles, the argumentation instruction model was developed and examined the validity of the model with proper points. Most of the modifications were related to how to apply the principles to the instructional model clearly.
In the external validity test, the effect of the argumentation instructional model is analyzed. General improvement in learners’cognitive flexibility was not evident in that result, but there was visible improvement in relation to specific themes. In addition, learners responded that the classes were interesting and that during the classes they could understand others’thoughts. Moreover, the teacher answered that the number of times learners expressed their opinions increased, and that their participation and logic in their own opinion were enhanced. Through the external validity test, the model was supplemented and a final revision made. The steps of the final argumentation instructional model are 1) presentation of problems, 2) perspective specification, 3) argumentation, and 4) reflection.
Based on the results of the research, the researcher discussed the possibility of improvement in cognitive flexibility and learning effects through this argumentation instructional model. Futhermore, important outcomes of the research were proposed: 1) authentic principles for cognitive flexibility in consideration of the classroom environment, 2) revised Kuhn et al. (2013) and developed argumentation instructional model in consideration of the Korean elementary school context, 3) internal and external validity of the model. Lastly, recommendations for future studies related to iterative experiment design and instruction design are proposed.