Andrew Tolmie

Bio: Andrew Tolmie is an academic researcher from Institute of Education. The author has contributed to research in topics: Group work & Science education. The author has an hindex of 29, co-authored 92 publications receiving 2850 citations. Previous affiliations of Andrew Tolmie include University College London & University of London.

Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: a review and case study

Abstract: Despite its potential benefits, the effectiveness of CMC when used to support learning in higher education is very variable, making it important to identify those factors which best predict successful implementations. A review of the literature from the past few years, presented in the first half of this paper, suggests that, consistent with Activity Theory (Leont'ev, 1978), the critical factors are those which provide a context and rationale for online communication by helping users to establish a shared purpose. However, generating empirical support for this hypothesis presents two kinds of methodological problem: specifying the methods and measures necessary to discern the existence and impact of shared purpose; and dealing with the difficulties of making controlled comparisons in this area. The second half of the paper illustrates, via an implementation case study, something of how these methodological problems might be resolved, and presents evidence in favour of the central importance of shared purpose.

The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children : group interaction and the understanding of motion down an incline

Abstract: It is widely accepted that primary school children will approach science with strong “alternative conceptions” about the variables at play which, unless directly challenged, will circumscribe learning. Extensive discussion concerning the form the challenges should take has led to the conclusion that learning will be maximized if children explore their conceptions while working with peers whose alternative conceptions arc different. At present, however, there is little research to support this, and the small amount that does exist says little about the process by which learning is effected. The current study attempted to redress this in the context of motion down an incline. Individual pre-tests were administered to 113 8- to 12-year-old children to establish their alternative conceptions. On the basis of their pre-test responses, and in order to establish adequate controls, the children were put into groups of four according to whether their conceptions were different or similar. The children worked in their groups on tasks designed to elicit the exploration of alternative conceptions, and were subsequently post-tested. The pattern of pre- to post-test change gave some support to the notion that learning is maximized when alternative conceptions differ. However, it gave few grounds for thinking that learning involves the internalization of conceptions that the groups jointly construct. Rather, it suggested a process of private conflict resolution, for which the catalyst was discussion held during the groups but continuing long after their completion.

Influence of Virtual Reality Training on the Roadside Crossing Judgments of Child Pedestrians.

Abstract: The roadside crossing judgments of children aged 7, 9, and 11 years were assessed relative to controls before and after training with a computer-simulated traffic environment. Trained children crossed more quickly, and their estimated crossing times became better aligned with actual crossing times. They crossed more promptly, missed fewer safe opportunities to cross, accepted smaller traffic gaps without increasing the number of risky crossings, and showed better conceptual understanding of the factors to be considered when making crossing judgments. All age groups improved to the same extent, and there was no deterioration when children were retested 8 months later. The results are discussed in relation to theoretical arguments concerning the extent to which children's pedestrian judgments are amenable to training.

Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies

Abstract: (1998). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Gifted and Talented International: Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 97-98.

The evolution of research on collaborative learning

Abstract: For many years, theories of collaborative learning tended to focus on how individuals function in a group. More recently, the focus has shifted so that the group itself has become the unit of analysis. In terms of empirical research, the initial goal was to establish whether and under what circumstances collaborative learning was more effective than learning alone. Researchers controlled several independent variables (size of the group, composition of the group, nature of the task, communication media, and so on). However, these variables interacted with one another in a way that made it almost impossible to establish causal links between the conditions and the effects of collaboration. Hence, empirical studies have more recently started to focus less on establishing parameters for effective collaboration and more on trying to understand the role which such variables play in mediating interaction. In this chapter, we argue that this shift to a more process-oriented account requires new tools for analysing and modelling interactions.

Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory

Abstract: Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.