Problem-based learning supported by arguments scaffolding that affect critical thinking teacher candidates

This study aims to determine the effect of the PBL model with argumentation scaffolding on changes in the critical thinking of teacher candidates’ teachers in terms of personality type and gender. This research is quasi-experimental research with one group pretest-posttest design. 28 prospective teachers who take the algebraic structure course are the samples of this study. Critical thinking skills scores were analysed descriptively and statistically with normality test and paired t-test. The results showed that the application of PBL with argumentation scaffolding was effective in increasing the critical thinking of prospective teachers from the criteria of "less critical" to "critical enough" and the n-gain results were categorized as moderate when viewed from the aspect of personality type. and gender. The existence of differences in critical thinking that is influenced by gender and personality type is a research finding that must be considered to determine the learning model. Keywords: Problem-based learning, gender, critical thinking, personality type

Communication as Argumentation: The Use of Scaffolding Tools by a Networked Nursing Community

This article analyzes the use of argumentation scaffolding strategies and tools by a networked community of nurses. Participants came from hospitals, health centres, and heart care institutes in three Canadian provinces. Over a six-month period, the nurses set a discussion agenda to address problems affecting the cardiac-patient population, using argumentation scaffolding as one of their networking tools. Data collected from two networked conferences is compared using transcripts of online conversations, interviews, and questionnaires. The analysis, drawing upon a theoretical framework integrating the work of Piaget, Habermas, and Grize, indicates different uses of the scaffolding tool as the nurses moved from the brainstorming, reflexive stage of discussion to the production of a co-authored document, The Heart Health Toolkit. Résumé : Cet article analyse l’utilisation de stratégies et outils d’échafaudage de l’argumentation employés par une communauté en réseau d’infirmières et infirmiers. Ces professionnelles et professionnels viennent des hôpitaux, de centres de santé et d’institutions spécialisées en cardiologie de trois provinces canadiennes. Pendant de six mois, les infirmières et infirmiers ont entamé des discussions en ligne afin de discuter la problématique de la population cardiaque, grâce à l’échafaudage de l’argumentation d’un système de forums de discussion. Les données des conversations tenues dans deux forums de discussion, ainsi que celles provenant de questionnaires et d’entrevues ont été comparées. L’analyse, effectuée grâce à une approche théorique intégrant les travaux de Piaget, Habermas et Grize, a mis en évidence différentes utilisations de l’outil d’échafaudage. Par ailleurs, elle démontre que les infirmières et infirmiers ont évolué d’un stade réflexif de discussion à un stade de production. Ce processus a mené à la rédaction collaborative d’un instrument d’enseignement : la trousse en santé du cæur.