On Appeals to (Visual) Models

In some visual cases, especially those in which one reasons from a visual model to a conclusion, it is tempting to think that some new normative base, perhaps a visual logic is in order. I show that, at least in the case of what I’ll call appeal to visual models, the same criteria are required in visual and verbal cases

Visual arguments and meta-arguments

Visual arguments—arguments that appeal to visual elements essentially—are legitimate arguments. To show this, I first consider what I call (perfect) fit arguments—arguments in which the recognition that items fit together suggests that they were once conjoined, perhaps originally. This form of argumentation is a type of abduction or inference to the best explanation (IBE). I then consider mathematical visual meta-arguments—arguments in which the validity or soundness of a mathematical argument is confirmed or refuted by appeal to diagrams

Commentery on: David Godden\u27s On the norms of visual argument

N/

Visual analogies and arguments

I argue that a basic similarity analysis of analogical reasoning handles many apparent cases of visual analogy. I consider how the visual and verbal elements interact in analogical cases. Finally, I offer two analyses of visual elements. One analysis is evidential. The visual elements are evidence for their ver-bal counterparts. One is non-evidential: the visual elements link to verbal elements without providing evi-dence for those elements. The result is to make more room for the logical analysis of visual argumentatio

Argument schemes—an epistemological approach

The paper develops a classificatory system of basic argument types on the basis of the epis-temological approach to argumentation. This approach has provided strict rules for several kinds of argu-ments. These kinds may be brought into a system of basic irreducible types, which rely on different parts of epistemology: deductive logic, probability theory, utility theory. The system reduces a huge mass of differ-ent argument schemes to basic types and gives them an epistemological foundation

Bridging dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory through critical questions

This article explores the relationship between argumentation theory and dialogic pedagogy. Arguments made in everyday discourse tend to be enthymematic, i.e., containing implicit premises. Thus, dialogue is often necessary to uncover hidden assumptions. Furthermore, evaluating logical arguments involves dialectical and dialogic processes. We articulate the role of critical questions in this process and present the Critical Questions Model of Argument Assessment (CQMAA) as a (mostly) comprehensive framework for evaluating arguments. Students can be taught to ask and discuss these critical questions. Yet to facilitate and sustain discussion of these questions, teachers need additional tools drawn from dialogic pedagogy. We draw on Robin Alexander’s conceptual framework for this purpose as well as Michaels and O’Connor’s work on Academically Productive Talk. Alexander’s framework includes six pedagogical principles and eight repertoires of talk. We focus specifically on teacher and student talk moves and propose that critical questions should be considered an important subset of productive talk moves that can bring rigor and purpose to classroom argumentation. Other talk moves are also needed to help students construct arguments, listen and engage with one another, and help sustain discussion of the critical questions. The CQMAA provides both a theoretical and practical link between (1) logical analysis and critique and (2) dialogic teaching

Capturing Debriefing and Enhancing Reflection within Simulated Clinical Learning Environments

This article presents findings from an evaluation of a new A3-size learner notes sheet designed for use by healthcare students engaging in clinical simulation and clinical skills sessions. The notes sheet consists of an adapted form of the SBAR (situation, background, assessment, response) tool, whilst capturing post-simulation oral debriefing provided by a facilitator. Additionally, the Driscoll (2007)model is used to provide students with an opportunity to reflect on their engagement in clinical simulation. Two cohorts of students, who engaged in separate simulation sessions, completed the A3 sheet. The study featured 33 midwifery and 21 operating department practitioner (ODP) students undertaking a simulation. Documentary analysis was undertaken to identify the depth of reflective writing of both groups of students. Midwifery student participants reflected on their experiences of simulation at a slightly deeper level than their ODP counterparts. All students adhered to the structure of the notes sheet when receiving their briefing from the facilitator and when asked to write their reflective accounts. This study has sought to explore an under-researched area of clinical simulation: the extent to which healthcare students can utilise reflection when engaging with a clinical scenario within a simulated learning environment