Assessment of a Three-Year Argument Skill Development Curriculum

This study examines whether middle-school students' dense, extended engagement in an argumentation curriculum promoted development of argument skills, specifically increased use of direct counterargument and improved argument evaluation skill. A total of 56 students in two classes participated twice a week for three years (grades 6, 7, and 8) as part of their regular school curriculum. Students attended an urban middle school affiliated with a large university and were predominantly Hispanic and African-American and from lower and lower-middle socioeconomic backgrounds; 20% were from middle-class Caucasian families. In addition to its central element - electronically conducted pair dialogs on social issues - the curriculum encompassed a range of activities including small group preparation of arguments and reflective activities. A third class of 23 served as a comparison group; they also met twice a week over the same time period. They addressed similar social issues in more traditional whole-class discussion and wrote essays. Assessments of dialogic argumentation skill and argument evaluation skill initially and at the end of each of the three years indicated that that the curriculum promoted the use of counterargument generally and the direct counterargument skill specifically. Performance of the experimental group increased over time in both respects and exceeded that of the comparison group. Students participating in the intervention also engaged in more sustained direct counterargument sequences than did students in the comparison group at the final assessment. Parallel improvements in argument evaluation skill of the experimental group relative to the comparison group suggest that evaluation skill responds to practice much the same way as does argumentation performance. Theoretical implications for our understanding of developmental mechanisms are considered, as well as educational implications

MASCUP! Mask Surveillance & Adherence Project @ Stockton University

Stockton University was one of over 50 Colleges and Universities across the nation to participate in a study sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control to gauge compliance with mask wearing during the Spring 2021 semester. Five undergraduate Public Health students supervised by a Public Health Faculty member, observed mask wearing behaviors of individuals on campus over an 8-week period of time. Observations ranged from 40-90 minutes at various times of day and at 15 different locations on campus. During that time there were a total of 2,548 observations, of which 2,357 people were wearing masks. Of that group, 92.5%, were wearing the mask correctly. Other variables that were observed and recorded were type of mask and how masks were worn incorrectly along with possible explanations for this mistake. Results indicate the most common type of mask was cloth, with more than half (54%), while the most common mistake was not covering the nose. Although observers were unable to determine the exact reason, the following were observed for those not wearing masks from most to least: eating / drinking, then, outdoors / not within 6 ft of anyone, and finally exercise / playing a sport. Lastly, Stockton’s results are compared to all institutions that participated in the study

L'argumentation comme entreprise collaborative: Une étude du but dialogique et de la pertinence dialectique chez les argumentateurs novices et expérimentés

Studies of adolescents and young-adults suggest that deliberative dialogue, a form of consensus-seeking argumentation, leads to stronger learning outcomes than persuasive dialogue. However, this research has not been informed by an analysis of dialogue among more experienced arguers. In the present study, we compare the deliberative and persuasive dialogues of novice and experienced arguers to better understand the difference between these two forms of discourse at differing levels of argumentative expertise. Our results confirm theoretical distinctions between deliberation and persuasion. Results also suggest that greater experience in argumentation is associated with a richer array of argumentative purposes, producing more cohesive, intersubjective and dialectically relevant dialogue. The implications of these findings for learning are discussed.Des études sur les adolescents et les jeunes adultes suggèrent que le dialogue délibératif, une forme d'argumentation avec laquelle on recherche le consensus, conduit à de meilleurs résultats d'apprentissage que le dialogue persuasif. Cependant, cette recherche n'a pas été éclairée par une analyse du dialogue entre des gens plus expérimentés dans l’argumentation. Dans la présente étude, nous comparons les dialogues délibératifs et persuasifs des personnes novices et des personnes expérimentées dans l’argumentation afin de mieux comprendre la différence entre ces deux formes de discours à différents niveaux d'expertise argumentative. Nos résultats confirment les distinctions théoriques entre délibération et persuasion. Les résultats suggèrent également qu'une plus grande expérience de l'argumentation est associée à un éventail plus riche d'objectifs argumentatifs, produisant un dialogue plus cohérent, intersubjectif et dialectiquement pertinent. On discute des implications de ces résultats pour l'apprentissage

Argumentation as a Collaborative Enterprise : A Study of Dialogic Purpose and Dialectical Relevance in Novice and Experienced Arguers

Studies of adolescents and young-adults suggest that deliberative dialogue, a form of consensus-seeking argumentation, leads to stronger learning outcomes than persuasive dialogue. However, this research has not been informed by an analysis of dialogue among more experienced arguers. In the present study, we compare the deliberative and persuasive dialogues of novice and experienced arguers to better understand the difference between these two forms of discourse at differing levels of argumentative expertise. Our results confirm theoretical distinctions between deliberation and persuasion. Results also suggest that greater experience in argumentation is associated with a richer array of argumentative purposes, producing more cohesive, intersubjective and dialectically relevant dialogue. The implications of these findings for learning are discussed.Des études sur les adolescents et les jeunes adultes suggèrent que le dialogue délibératif, une forme d'argumentation avec laquelle on recherche le consensus, conduit à de meilleurs résultats d'apprentissage que le dialogue persuasif. Cependant, cette recherche n'a pas été éclairée par une analyse du dialogue entre des gens plus expérimentés dans l’argumentation. Dans la présente étude, nous comparons les dialogues délibératifs et persuasifs des personnes novices et des personnes expérimentées dans l’argumentation afin de mieux comprendre la différence entre ces deux formes de discours à différents niveaux d'expertise argumentative. Nos résultats confirment les distinctions théoriques entre délibération et persuasion. Les résultats suggèrent également qu'une plus grande expérience de l'argumentation est associée à un éventail plus riche d'objectifs argumentatifs, produisant un dialogue plus cohérent, intersubjectif et dialectiquement pertinent. On discute des implications de ces résultats pour l'apprentissage

Research Horizons [Volume 15, Number 1, Spring 1997]

NOTE: This PDF file was created from original HTML files on GTRI's website. The file may contain contain links to URIs outside of SMARTech. The Georgia Tech Library and Information Center cannot guarantee the authenticity of resources that reside outside the smartech.gatech.edu domain.Flying into the Future -- in Miniature - Tiny, nimble, self-piloted craft could collect or forward information for everyone from military officials to scientists, police and farmers.Rapid Prototyping: Key to Speedy Manufacturing - The Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing Institute educates students, addresses industry needs and sheds light on future research directions.Artifacts Become Life - Kiosks developed by Georgia Tech's Interactive Media Technology Center make collections in Emory University's Michael C. Carlos Museum come alive with sound, animation and more

Research Horizons [Volume 15, Number 2, Summer/Fall 1997]

NOTE: This PDF file was created from original HTML files on GTRI's website. The file may contain contain links to URIs outside of SMARTech. The Georgia Tech Library and Information Center cannot guarantee the authenticity of resources that reside outside the smartech.gatech.edu domain.Electrifying Transportation - Georgia Tech researchers are helping design the electric and electric-hybrid vehicles of tomorrow. They promise a cleaner future in transportation.A Bright Future for Solar Energy - Georgia Tech is playing an important role in establishing photovoltaics as a leading contender in the search for clean, renewable energy sources. (Includes sidebar story: Why Photovoltaics?)Taking A Closer Look - New electron microscope facility benefits research in nanotechnology, new materials and microelectronics.Striking Gold - New materials isolated at Georgia Tech are the first to exhibit charge-quantization effects in a macroscopically obtained material, for which every cluster behaves identically

What Constitutes Skilled Argumentation and How Does it Develop?

We report our efforts to assess the skill of contemplating and evaluating argumentation. An adaptive forced-choice instrument was developed and administered to 6th grade students, 7th grade students who had participated in a year-long intervention that successfully strengthened their argumentation production skills, and expert arguers. The instrument was sensitive enough to detect differences in skill level across these groups. Despite their gains in production skill, however, 7th graders showed only modest superiority over the untrained 6th graders and performance well below that of experts. Meta-level demands involved in evaluation but not present in production, we propose, may make evaluation more difficult

Research Horizons [Volume 14, Number 3, Winter 1997]

NOTE: This PDF file was created from original HTML files on GTRI's website. The file may contain contain links to URIs outside of SMARTech. The Georgia Tech Library and Information Center cannot guarantee the authenticity of resources that reside outside the smartech.gatech.edu domain.The "Lifeblood" of Research - Graduate students are an indispensible part of scientific and technological exploration. (Story contains numerous graphics.)Laser and Materials: How Do They Interact? - New laboratory offer possibilities for the study of photonic interaction with materials."Age Brings ... Capabilities, Not Limitations" - Research can enchance the lives of today's -- and tomorrow's -- older adults.Research Personality: Flying High - Dr. Marilyn Smith and colleagues are helping enhance aircraft design -- making airplanes and helicopters less susceptible to damage from fatigue