A book review on Elements of Argumentation

Unknow

Analysis of Argumentation Contents in the High School Biology Textbook: A Discourse Analysis on the Topic of the Respiratory System

Abstract: Analysis of Argumentation Contents in the High School Biology Textbook: A Discourse Analysis on the Topic of the Respiratory System. Objectives: Study examines structure of learning discourse, explores aspects of discussion, examines presentation of learning motives in textbooks, analyzes a comparison of three biology textbooks on respiratory materials. Methods: A qualitative investigation of descriptive text, discourse structure analysis tasks, conversational type elements, learning motive explanations, Erlangga, Yrama Widya, Intan Pariwara as publishers of Biology textbook. Findings: Results revealed nature of conversation structure. Three scientific books observed that one side of the argument swamped any remaining sections of debate due to a rapid review of doubtful material. Examining three books analysed reveals a discussion of many quality,rating issues. In Good category, Book B got highest rating of 8.3. Book C received an 8.2 on the “upside” scale, whereas Book A received a 7 on the “appropriate” scale.Keywords: Argumentation, tektbook, discourse analysis.Abstrak: Analisis Isi Argumentasi dalam Buku Teks Biologi SMA: Analisis Wacana pada Topik Sistem Pernapasan. Tujuan: Penelitian ini mengkaji struktur wacana pembelajaran, memeriksa aspek argumentasi, meneliti penyajian motif pembelajaran buku teks, menganalisis perbandingan tiga buku biologi materi sistem pernapasan. Metode: Penelitian kualitatif jenis kalimat deskriptif, kegiatan analisis struktur wacana pembelajaran, aspek jenis argumentasi, presentasi motif pembelajaran, menggunakan buku teks biologi kelas XI semester 2 sebagai sample. Buku Biologi merupakan buku teks terbitan Erlangga, Yrama Widya, Intan Pariwara. Temuan: Hasil penelitian menunjukkan kualitas struktur hasil wacana dari persentase analisis argumentasi materi tiga buku biologi menyatakan aspek argumentasi lebih dominan dari semua aspek argumen lainnya. Perbandingan ketiga buku yang dianalisis memiliki wacana argumentasi kualitas dan skor berbeda. Skor buku B tertinggi dengan kategori “baik” dengan skor 8,3. Buku C Skor 8,2 dengan kategori “bagus” dan buku A skor 7 dengan kategori “cukup”.Kata kunci: Argumentasi, buku teks, analisis wacana.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v12.i2.20220

'The good paper – a handbook for writing papers in higher education' by Lotte Rienecker, Peter Stray Jorgensen, with contributions by Signe Skov : review

Book review'The good paper – a handbook for writing papers in higher education' by Lotte Rienecker, Peter Stray Jorgensen, with contributions by Signe Skov. Samsfundslitteratur

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria

Report on argumentation and teacher education in Europe

This document will ultimately form part of a comprehensive package of materials for teacher education and professional development in argumentation. The initial deliverable from Kaunas University of Technology described the rhetorical basis of argumentation theory for pre‐ and in‐service teachers, whilst this state of the art report sets out the current and rather unsatisfactory status of argumentation in curricula, initial teacher training/education and teacher professional development, across the fifteen S‐TEAM partner countries. We believe that this is a representative sample and that the report can be taken as a reliable snapshot of the situation in Europe generally

From 'scientific revolution' to 'unscientific revolution': an analysis of approaches to the history of generative linguistics

This paper is devoted to the challenge that generative linguistics poses for linguistic historiography. As a first step, it presents a systematic overview of 19 approaches to the history of generative linguistics. Second, it analyzes the approaches overviewed by asking and answering the following questions: (a) To what extent and how are the views at issue biased? (b) What central topics do the approaches discuss, how successfully do they tackle them, and how do the various standpoints converge and diverge? (c) How do the approaches relate to general trends in the philosophy and history of science? The concluding step summarizes our findings with respect to Chomsky’s impact on linguistic historiography

Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC

Having developed, used and evaluated some of the early IBIS-based approaches to design rationale (DR) such as gIBIS and QOC in the late 1980s/mid-1990s, we describe the subsequent evolution of the argumentation-based paradigm through software support, and perspectives drawn from modeling and meeting facilitation. Particular attention is given to the challenge of negotiating the overheads of capturing this form of rationale. Our approach has maintained a strong emphasis on keeping the representational scheme as simple as possible to enable real time meeting mediation and capture, attending explicitly to the skills required to use the approach well, particularly for the sort of participatory, multi-stakeholder requirements analysis demanded by many design problems. However, we can then specialize the notation and the way in which the tool is used in the service of specific methodologies, supported by a customizable hypermedia environment, and interoperable with other software tools. After presenting this approach, called Compendium, we present examples to illustrate the capabilities for support security argumentation in requirements engineering, template driven modeling for document generation, and IBIS-based indexing of and navigation around video records of meetings

The Uses of Argument in Mathematics

Stephen Toulmin once observed that `it has never been customary for philosophers to pay much attention to the rhetoric of mathematical debate'. Might the application of Toulmin's layout of arguments to mathematics remedy this oversight? Toulmin's critics fault the layout as requiring so much abstraction as to permit incompatible reconstructions. Mathematical proofs may indeed be represented by fundamentally distinct layouts. However, cases of genuine conflict characteristically reflect an underlying disagreement about the nature of the proof in question.Comment: 10 pages, 5 figures. To be presented at the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference, McMaster University, May 2005 and LOGICA 2005, Hejnice, Czech Republic, June 200