A Systematic Review of Argumentation Related to the Engineering-Designed World

Background Across academic disciplines, researchers have found that argumentation‐based pedagogies increase learners\u27 achievement and engagement. Engineering educational researchers and teachers of engineering may benefit from knowledge regarding how argumentation related to engineering has been practiced and studied. Purpose/Hypothesis Drawing from terms and concepts used in national standards for K‐12 education and accreditation requirements for undergraduate engineering education, this study was designed to identify how arguments and argumentation related to the engineering‐designed world were operationalized in relevant literature. Methodology Specified search terms and inclusion criteria were used to identify 117 empirical studies related to engineering argumentation and educational research. A qualitative content analysis was used to identify trends across these studies. Findings Overall, engineering‐related argumentation was associated with a variety of positive learner outcomes. Across many studies, arguments were operationalized in practice as statements regarding whether an existing technology should be adopted in a given context, usually with a limited number of supports (e.g., costs and ethics) provided for each claim. Relatively few studies mentioned empirical practices, such as tests. Most studies did not name the race/ethnicity of participants nor report engineering‐specific outcomes. Conclusions Engineering educators in K‐12 and undergraduate settings can create learning environments in which learners use a range of epistemic practices, including empirical practices, to support a range of claims. Researchers can study engineering‐specific outcomes while specifying relevant demographics of their research participants

STEM Education Practices: Examination of the Argumentation Skills of Pre-service Science Teachers

The aim of this research is to examine the pre-service science teachers’ progress in structuring their argumentation components during the STEM education practices. In the research were worked with 9 pre-service science teachers who are 3rd grade students and took the course of 'Science Laboratory Practices' in a state university. The research is a case study. In the research, structured and unstructured activities were applied for 9 weeks. In structured practices, instructions were followed to show how simple machines are constructed. Unstructured practices were based on the design of pre-service science teachers. The data of the research is obtained through voice recordings, unstructured observation. Argumentation components were examined according to the descriptive analysis approach. As a result of analysis of obtained data; pre-service science teachers have made great progress in constructing argumentation components (claim, evidence, reasoning and rebuttal), and the average score of the rebuttal was found to be lower than the other components. The results obtained from this study demonstrate that STEM education is an effective approach to improving the argumentation skill. Argumentation takes part in engineering design processes which have great importance in STEM practices; given its major role in identifying problems, development of possible solutions and determination, evaluation and discussion of most plausible ones. Therefore argumentation approach can be included as part of STEM education. Keywords: STEM education, argumentation, science education, pre-service science teacher

Using argument notation to engineer biological simulations with increased confidence

The application of computational and mathematical modelling to explore the mechanics of biological systems is becoming prevalent. To significantly impact biological research, notably in developing novel therapeutics, it is critical that the model adequately represents the captured system. Confidence in adopting in silico approaches can be improved by applying a structured argumentation approach, alongside model development and results analysis. We propose an approach based on argumentation from safety-critical systems engineering, where a system is subjected to a stringent analysis of compliance against identified criteria. We show its use in examining the biological information upon which a model is based, identifying model strengths, highlighting areas requiring additional biological experimentation and providing documentation to support model publication. We demonstrate our use of structured argumentation in the development of a model of lymphoid tissue formation, specifically Peyer's Patches. The argumentation structure is captured using Artoo (www.york.ac.uk/ycil/software/artoo), our Web-based tool for constructing fitness-for-purpose arguments, using a notation based on the safety-critical goal structuring notation. We show how argumentation helps in making the design and structured analysis of a model transparent, capturing the reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of each biological feature and recording assumptions, as well as pointing to evidence supporting model-derived conclusions

Exploring the relationship between students' level of content knowledge and their ability to engage in scientific argumentation using structural equation modeling

The release of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in 2013 introduced science standards that are rich in core ideas as well as science and engineering practices. The NGSS views science content and science practice as closely interconnected to each other. The aim of this study is to explore the relationship between students' level of science content and their ability to engage in the practice of scientific argumentation. Specifically, this study teases apart content knowledge into both domain-general and discipline specific knowledge. To this end, this study explores the following research questions. (1) What is the relationship between students' content knowledge and their ability to engage in scientific argumentation? (2) How do the different dimensions of argumentation vary in difficulty? To explore these research questions, factor analysis, Item Response Theory, and Structural Equation Modeling are used. The results indicate the there is a stronger relationship between discipline specific knowledge and argumentation. This study contributes to the understanding of the connection between content knowledge and argumentation has the potential to inform and improve argumentation instruction, which ultimately can provide students with more authentic science experiences in the classroomIncludes bibliographical reference

Learning the language of academic engineering: Sociocognitive writing in graduate students

Although engineering graduate programs rarely require academic writing courses, the indicators of merit in academic engineering, such as journal publications, successful grants, and doctoral milestones (e.g. theses, dissertations) are based in effective written argumentation and disciplinary discourse. Further, graduate student attrition averages 57% across all disciplines, with some studies classifying up to 50% of these students as “ABD” (All But Dissertation.) In engineering disciplines specifically, graduate attrition rates across the U.S. average 36% (both Master’s and PhD students), according to the Council of Graduate Schools. The lack of socialization is generally noted as a main reason for graduate attrition, one of the primary elements of which is the development of disciplinary identity and membership within a discourse community. To this end, this research presents findings from a mixed methods study that maps the writing attitudes, processes and dispositions of engineering graduate students with enacted writing patterns in research proposals. Statistical survey data and the research proposals from 50 winners of the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP) were analyzed through statistical methods, genre analysis, and content analysis methods. Interpreted through Role Identity Theory and Academic Literacies Theory, the findings from this research indicate that engineering writers may approach writing differently from students in other disciplines, and as such, the instruction of engineering writing should be taught in ways that encourage sociocognitive enculturation of graduate students into the engineering discourse community

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

How to Play the “Playing God” Card

When the phrase “playing God” is used in debates concerning the use of new technologies, such as cloning or genetic engineering, it is usually interpreted as a warning not to interfere with God’s creation or nature. I think that this interpretation of “playing God” arguments as a call to non-interference with nature is too narrow. In this paper, I propose an alternative interpretation of “playing God” arguments. Taking an argumentation theory approach, I provide an argumentation scheme and accompanying critical questions that capture the moral concerns expressed by “playing God” arguments. If I am right, then “playing God” arguments should be understood, not as a warning to leave God’s creation or nature alone, but rather as an invitation to think carefully about all the ways in which the use of new technologies could go seriously wrong

Using agent based simulation to empirically examine complexity in carbon footprint business process

Through the critical analysis of the extant literature, it is observed that Simulation is widely used as a research method in Natural Sciences, Engineering and Social Sciences, in addition to argumentation and formalisation as the third way of carrying out research. Simulation is not so widely used in Business and Management research as it ought to have been, though this is changing for the better with the technological advances in computers and their computational power. These technological advances enhance the capability of theoretical research models, in defining a problem and their use in empirically examining a solution to the problem in simulated reality, like never before. Management journal searches for “Simulation and Complexity Theory” returned nil or zero returns, which explain that this combination is not popular in management research, though they are used individually more often. The major objective of this paper is to analyse some of the conceptual (or theoretical) and methodological (or empirical) contributions that Agent Based Simulation and Complexity Theory can make to the business and management community in their business process related research In view of this, some basic ideas are discussed of using Agent Based Simulation as a method in Business and Management Studies research and how an Agent Based Model can be applied to a business process as complex as Carbon Footprint. It is in this context that the use of Complexity as the base theory to empirically examine a business process is discussed. Throughout this article, our research on complex adaptive systems (e.g., Accounting Information System) in continuously changing organisations managing complex business processes (e.g., Carbon Footprint business process) is considered as the basis for illustrating some of the concepts. Through this article, avenues for further management research using these tools and methodology are suggested

Combined automotive safety and security pattern engineering approach

Automotive systems will exhibit increased levels of automation as well as ever tighter integration with other vehicles, traffic infrastructure, and cloud services. From safety perspective, this can be perceived as boon or bane - it greatly increases complexity and uncertainty, but at the same time opens up new opportunities for realizing innovative safety functions. Moreover, cybersecurity becomes important as additional concern because attacks are now much more likely and severe. However, there is a lack of experience with security concerns in context of safety engineering in general and in automotive safety departments in particular. To address this problem, we propose a systematic pattern-based approach that interlinks safety and security patterns and provides guidance with respect to selection and combination of both types of patterns in context of system engineering. A combined safety and security pattern engineering workflow is proposed to provide systematic guidance to support non-expert engineers based on best practices. The application of the approach is shown and demonstrated by an automotive case study and different use case scenarios.EC/H2020/692474/EU/Architecture-driven, Multi-concern and Seamless Assurance and Certification of Cyber-Physical Systems/AMASSEC/H2020/737422/EU/Secure COnnected Trustable Things/SCOTTEC/H2020/732242/EU/Dependability Engineering Innovation for CPS - DEIS/DEISBMBF, 01IS16043, Collaborative Embedded Systems (CrESt

Arguing security: validating security requirements using structured argumentation

This paper proposes using both formal and structured informal arguments to show that an eventual realized system can satisfy its security requirements. These arguments, called 'satisfaction arguments', consist of two parts: a formal argument based upon claims about domain properties, and a set of informal arguments that justify the claims. Building on our earlier work on trust assumptions and security requirements, we show how using satisfaction arguments assists in clarifying how a system satisfies its security requirements, in the process identifying those properties of domains that are critical to the requirements