What changed your mind : the roles of dynamic topics and discourse in argumentation process

In our world with full of uncertainty, debates and argumentation contribute to the progress of science and society. Despite of the in- creasing attention to characterize human arguments, most progress made so far focus on the debate outcome, largely ignoring the dynamic patterns in argumentation processes. This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness, beyond simply predicting who will persuade whom. Specifically, we propose a novel neural model that is able to dynamically track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations, allowing the investigation of their roles in influencing the outcomes of persuasion. Extensive experiments have been conducted on argumentative conversations on both social media and supreme court. The results show that our model outperforms state-of-the-art models in identifying persuasive arguments via explicitly exploring dynamic factors of topic and discourse. We further analyze the effects of topics and discourse on persuasiveness, and find that they are both useful -- topics provide concrete evidence while superior discourse styles may bias participants, especially in social media arguments. In addition, we draw some findings from our empirical results, which will help people better engage in future persuasive conversations

Exploring Current Practice of Using Technology to Support Collaborative Argumentation in Science Classrooms

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how middle school science teachers enact the practice of using technology to support collaborative argumentation in their science classroom. This study employed qualitative case study and drew on data sources of interviews and observations. This study identified two themes. Six teachers regarded scientific argumentation as an important science practice, but five of them integrated this practice into their science class without formally introducing it. All teachers integrated different forms of technology to engage students in scientific argumentation. In this study, the findings suggested there is a need to provide professional development for teachers to learn about scientific argumentation. The findings can be used as a basis for the design and development of professional development training experiences for in-servic

"I would like to see that one is able to say I'm proud of being a citizen of the EU…" – the way Hungarian people see Europe and the European Union

This paper explores the concepts of Europe, Europeanism and European Union, their meaning to Hungarians, how people define them and how they relate to these concepts through the analysis of qualitative in-depth interviews. The main question is whether the discourse, expressing attitudes towards Europe and the European Union, are of symbolic or utilitarian character. The symbolic way to relate to the EU is based on principles, an ideological or an emotional approach of the subject, while the pragmatic or utilitarian logic is based on rational cost-benefit analysis. The main argument of this current paper is that the way Hungarians tend to relate to the EU is rather utilitarian and it is the utilitarian logic that represents the relevant frame to understand people’s attitudes on the subject

Analyzing science teachers’ support of dialogic argumentation using teacher roles of questioning and communicative approaches

The purpose of this study is to investigate how teachers use different types of discourse to support dialogic argumentation. Dialogic argumentation is a collaborative process in which students construct arguments together and examine arguments presented by their peers. Science teachers can use argumentation as a vehicle to help students gain a working understanding of science content and the nature of science and its practices. Whole-class closing discussions from video-recorded lessons are analyzed to study the discourse used to support argumentation by two physics teachers in lower secondary schools. Analysis of discourse includes coding of communicative approach at the episode level and coding of teacher roles of questioning at the level of speaking turns. Student argumentation is also assessed on the basis of dialogicity and complexity of arguments. Findings characterize different ways of orchestrating argumentative discussions. Authoritative episodes were characterized by the presence of the dispenser role, with teachers retaining ownership over ideas and classroom activities to emphasize the correctness of a justification. Dialogic episodes of classroom interaction showed openness to student perspectives, but teachers’ use of questioning roles revealed different ways of orchestrating argumentative discussions. The moderator role granted ownership of ideas to students to either pursue a single student’s argument in more depth or to directly contrast opposing justifications. Less commonly used were the roles of coach and participant, which teachers used to elicit student justifications in more depth or support students in examining the arguments of their peers. Examination of discourse using multiple frameworks revealed differences in teachers’ values and the impact of the use of teacher questioning roles on student contributions to argumentative discussions

Modeling interdisciplinary activities involving mathematics and philosophy

In this paper a didactical model is presented. The goal of the model is to work as a didactical tool, or conceptual frame, for developing, carrying through and evaluating interdisciplinary activities involving the subject of mathematics and philosophy in the high schools. Through the terms of Horizontal Intertwining, Vertical Structuring and Horizontal Propagation the model consists of three phases, each considering different aspects of the nature of interdisciplinary activities. The theoretical modelling is inspired by work which focuses on the students abilities to concept formation in expanded domains (Michelsen, 2001, 2005a, 2005b). Furthermore the theoretical description rest on a series of qualitative interviews with teachers from the Danish high school (grades 9-11) conducted recently. The special case of concrete interdisciplinary activities between mathematics and philosophy is also considered

Comparing Words to Debate about Drinking Water: Textometrics for Argumentation Studies

ISBN: 9781848902114 1848902115 1848902123 9781848902121International audienceIn ten videotaped socio-scientific debates related to water,students from Mexico, the USA and France tend to focus on afew alternative positions. On the basis of Grize’s definition ofschematization, we followed their reasoning by studying howthey cast light on specific aspects of the discursive object“water”. Through textometrical analysis of debate transcripts,we specified 6 characteristics of “water” that are more or lessemphasized depending on the prevailing nationalargumentative scenario

An Investigation of Student Engagement in a Global Warming Debate

NOTE: This is a large file, 77 mb in size! This article describes an investigation into how using debate as a pedagogical tool for addressing earth system science concepts can promote active student learning, present a realistic and dynamic view of science, and provide a mechanism for integrating the scientific, political and social dimensions of global environmental change. Using global warming as an example of earth system science, the authors consider how participation in debate provides an avenue for engaging students in science. The investigation draws from studies of school science that focus on the use of argument as a pedagogical tool and examines how students make use of observationally-based climatic data sets when debating the cause of global warming. Educational levels: Graduate or professional

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N

(Re)Designing the Debate Tournament for Civic Life

The presence of public audiences in competitive contest rounds, a central feature of early intercollegiate debate practice, was largely eliminated during the ascent of the tournament model over the last century. However, audience participation in tournament designs has recently become a topic of conversation among those committed to transforming the activity in line with the emerging civic and public attitudes of higher education. Given the preliminary nature of this conversation, we currently lack robust models for and scholarly reflection about the role audiences might play within the calcified and secluded structures of tournament debating. Building on recent work in American intercollegiate debate scholarship and practice, this essay recovers a little noted multimodal adjudication system or MAS (i.e., the use of multiple judging styles simultaneously) implemented at Stanford University on April 2, 1925 as an historical design resource for visualizing the role of audiences in debate competitions. Recovering this system provides a context to employ an historical antecedent as a small-scale case study to inform one approach to tournament redesign in the present. In addition, this essay reflects on numerous advantages of translating the Stanford system into contemporary tournament designs, especially: (1) the value of revisiting historical practices to rediscover pedagogical and competitive elements that have been forgotten over time; (2) the importance of acknowledging critical differences between the activity’s past and present; and, (3) implementing experimental tournament designs that generate novel features of interest for debate, argumentation, and rhetorical scholars