Examining myside bias on a controversial historical event after engagement in dialogic argumentation: Insights from a think aloud study

Abstract

The main objective of this exploratory study was to examine students' reasoning – particularly myside bias – on a controversial historical event using rich think aloud data, before and after being engaged in extensive dialogic argumentation on a non-historical topic. Elementary school students engaged in a nine-session argument-based intervention. For 30 students — a subset of the 116 participants who engaged in the intervention and who constitute the focus of this study — myside bias was assessed before and after their engagement in the intervention, using the think-aloud methodology. Students were asked to read two accounts about a recent war in their country—an own-side account from a historian of their ethnic group and an other-side account from a historian of the adversary ethnic group—and to think aloud. The analysis of the think-aloud protocols shows that participants responded differently when reading the own-side account vs. the other-side one. In particular, participants expressed significantly more statements that supported the other-side when reading the other-side's account than when reading their own-side's account. This shows that engaging with the other-side account, as revealed by the think-aloud process, can promote a deeper understanding of the other side. Moreover, they made more evaluative comments post-assessment than pre-assessment. However, their evaluative comments were still in favor of their own position, which shows how resilient myside bias is to change. Overall, our findings suggest that the think-aloud methodology is a valuable tool for identifying (changes in) myside bias and the conditions that facilitate it.