Daniel Wissinger, assistant professor in the Dept. of Communication Disorders, Special Education, and Disability Services, recently published an article with co-author Susan De La Paz in the Journal of Educational Psychology.
In the article, Wissinger and De La Paz report on data from an experimental study with 151 middle school students responding in writing to their readings about historical controversies. Students were randomly assigned to one of two groups: students in the experimental group used argumentative schemes and critical questions during discussions, while students in the control group used a traditional set of questions to guide discussions. Students in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group on the quality of their historical reasoning in their written arguments. The argument schemes and critical questions facilitated students' ability to substantiate their claims and to develop rebuttals.