Analysing argumentation episodes: A case study from physics teacher education

We discuss here how domain-specific argumentation and skills related to it can form part of learning science in higher education. In this study, we analyse pre-service physics teachers written reports (N=36). We introduce here four argumentative elements and propose how they can be used to analyse physics knowledge argumentation. The analysis allows us to detect how pre-service teachers combine argumentative elements in their explanations and consider what is the logical order of the appearance of argumentation episodes. Results show that the analysis method based on argumentative episodes reveal relevant differences in pre-service physics teachers’ argumentation and its structure. We conclude by discussing how explicit teaching of argument construction may help pre-service teachers to improve their abilities to construct logical arguments

Urban modelling as storytelling: using simulation models as a narrative

This article examines the distinctions between empirical and simulation models using the metaphors of argument and narrative. It argues that all argumentation is contextualized within a narrative that is either inferred or communicated. The paper provides another semantic structure for urban models that applies elements of systems- dynamic method to construct "stories" of the past and possible futures of communities in a watershed in southern Arizona. By constructing such narratives this paper demonstrates how computer-based urban models can "tell a story"

How can we design tactile interactive software for argument construction in criminal intelligence analysis?

Argumentation construction refers to the different ways in which people can formulate a well defined argument that can withstand scrutiny in a court of law. Different domains have enhanced the research on argumentation construction, but each enhancement relates either to ‘evidence’ or to the ‘relevance of evidence’, thus making these elements the corner stone elements of argumentation construction. By attempting to understand how Criminal Intelligence Analysts understand and manage these corner stone elements, as well as how these elements differ to the law domain counterparts, we aspire to formulate design guidelines for a software program that is tailored to how Criminal Intelligence Analysts think and argue during sense-making activities. This paper outlines the relevant literature and why the researchers consider ‘evidence’ and the ‘relevance of evidence’ as the corner stone elements of argumentation construction. The results section summarises the outcomes of two qualitative studies. The first study aims to understand how Criminal Intelligence Analysts perceive and manage uncertain information and how this eventually leads to the creation of evidence (as exhibits) for a court of law. The second study aims to understand how Criminal Intelligence Analysts know which information is relevant for the task at hand, especially when uncertainty is high. The results of the two studies still need to be combined and put into practise (as design guidelines) to test the effectiveness and validity of the results obtained in the two studies. This is listed as future work in the conclusion section

Towards an authentic argumentation literacy test

A central goal of education is to improve argumentation literacy. How do we know how well this goal is achieved? Can we measure argumentation literacy? The present study is a preliminary step towards measuring the efficacy of education with regards to argumentation literacy. Tests currently in use to determine critical thinking skills are often similar to IQ-tests in that they predominantly measure logical and mathematical abilities. Thus, they may not measure the various other skills required in understanding authentic argumentation. To identify the elements of argumentation literacy, this exploratory study begins by surveying introductory textbooks within argumentation theory, critical thinking, and rhetoric. Eight main abilities have been identified. Then, the study outlines an Argumentation Literacy Test that would comprise these abilities suggested by the literature. Finally, the study presents results from a pilot of a version of such a test and discusses needs for further development

A book review on Elements of Argumentation

Unknow

The functional nature of argument revisited

Semantically coherent and functionally independent argumentative complexes in a text are called units of argumentation. A unit is a complex of composites performing argumentative functions--elements of argumentation. Functions are only established at the level of their unit. From an enthymematic point of view, the composition of a unit can be minimal, nominal and maximal, these having to do with primary and secondary functions. From an argumentation textual composition angle, a step and a move of a rgumentation are distinguished. A step corresponds to a unit. A move is composed of steps. Steps function as grounds at the textual level

Argument by Anecdote

Argumentation textbooks typically dismiss the anecdote as an inferior type of evidence. We argue that it deserves more serious attention because it serves three important purposes: (1) Anecdotes function as synecdoches capable of revealing insights unobtainable through statistical norms. (2) Their narrative form lends vivacity and presence to an argument. (3) They often enact or portray the arguer’s character. Anecdotes, then, coordinate evidentiary, representational, narrative and ethotic elements of argumentation and are not always trivial

The Middle Way: East Asian masters students’ perceptions of critical argumentation in U.K. universities.

The paper explores the learning experiences of East Asian masters students in dealing with Western academic norms of critical thinking in classroom debate and assignment writing. The research takes a cultural approach, and employs grounded theory and case study methodology, the aims being for students to explain their perceptions of their personal learning journeys. The data suggest that the majority of students interviewed rejected full academic acculturation into Western norms of argumentation. They instead opted for a ‘Middle Way’ that synergizes the traditional cultural academic values held by many East Asian students with those elements of Western academic norms that are perceived to be aligned with these. This is a relatively new area of research which represents a challenge for British lecturers and students