Assessing L2 Argumentation in the UAE Context

In this rapidly changing world, argumentation and critical thinking skills are undeniably crucial for new generations of Emirati students. These skills lay the groundwork for a competitive economy, which is a priority for the UAE in its Vision 2021. Specifically, today’s modern workplaces require workers to evaluate different propositions and develop their own after weighing up these various ideas, and thus the ability to defend arguments in English has become increasingly important for UAE university students in English-medium universities as well as their future professional contexts. Despite this importance, research regarding argumentation and the related critical thinking skills is sorely lacking in the UAE. This chapter delineates how written argumentation was assessed in a timed essay in a mandatory argumentative writing course taken by university freshmen in a government university in the UAE, and how the feedback gleaned from this common assessment was mapped to the teaching curriculum to shed light on the teaching effectiveness and to provide directions for future teaching

Scaffolding School Pupils’ Scientific Argumentation with Evidence-Based Dialogue Maps

This chapter reports pilot work investigating the potential of Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping to scaffold young teenagers’ scientific argumentation. Our research objective is to better understand pupils’ usage of dialogue maps created in Compendium to write scientific ex-planations. The participants were 20 pupils, 12-13 years old, in a summer science course for “gifted and talented” children in the UK. Through qualitative analysis of three case studies, we investigate the value of dialogue mapping as a mediating tool in the scientific reasoning process during a set of learning activities. These activities were published in an online learning envi-ronment to foster collaborative learning. Pupils mapped their discussions in pairs, shared maps via the online forum and in plenary discussions, and wrote essays based on their dialogue maps. This study draws on these multiple data sources: pupils’ maps in Compendium, writings in science and reflective comments about the uses of mapping for writing. Our analysis highlights the diversity of ways, both successful and unsuccessful, in which dialogue mapping was used by these young teenagers

Approaching Proof in the Classroom Through the Logic of Inquiry

The paper analyses a basic gap, highlighted by most of the literature concerning the teaching of proofs, namely, the distance between students' argumentative and proving processes. The analysis is developed from both epistemological and cognitive standpoints: it critiques the Toulmin model of reasoning and introduces a new model, the Logic of Inquiry of Hintikka, more suitable for bridging this gap. An example of didactical activity within Dynamic Geometry Environments is sketched in order to present a concrete illustration of this approach and to show the pedagogical effectiveness of the model

Functional thalamocortical connectivity at term equivalent age and outcome at 2 years in infants born preterm

Contains fulltext : 231088.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Using exchange structure analysis to explore argument in text-based computer conferences

Computer conferencing provides a new site for students to develop and rehearse argumentation skills, but much remains to be learnt about how to encourage and support students in this environment. Asynchronous text-based discussion differs in significant ways from face-to-face discussion, creating a need for specially designed schemes for analysis. This paper discusses some of the problems of analysing asynchronous argumentation, and puts forward an analytical framework based on exchange structure analysis, which brings a linguistic perspective to bear on the interaction. Key features of the framework are attention to both interactive and ideational aspects of the discussion, and the ability to track the dynamic construction of argument content. The paper outlines the framework itself, and discusses some of the findings afforded by this type of analysis, and its limitations

Mapping Children's Discussions of Evidence in Science to Assess Collaboration and Argumentation

The research reported in this paper concerns the development of children's skills of interpreting and evaluating evidence in science. Previous studies have shown that school teaching often places limited emphasis on the development of these skills, which are necessary for children to engage in scientific debate and decision-making. The research, undertaken in the UK, involved four collaborative decision-making activities to stimulate group discussion, each was carried out with five groups of four children (10-11 years old). The research shows how the children evaluated evidence for possible choices and judged whether their evidence was sufficient to support a particular conclusion or the rejection of alternative conclusions. A mapping technique was developed to analyse the discussions and identify different "levels" of argumentation. The authors conclude that suitable collaborative activities that focus on the discussion of evidence can be developed to exercise children's ability to argue effectively in making decisions

Untangling the Conceptual Isssues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations

Reydon and Scholz raise doubts about the Darwinian status of organizational ecology by arguing that Darwinian principles are not applicable to organizational populations. Although their critique of organizational ecology’s typological essentialism is correct, they go on to reject the Darwinian status of organizational populations. This paper claims that the distinction between replicators and interactors, raised in modern philosophy of biology but not discussed by Reydon and Scholz, points the way forward for organizational ecologists. It is possible to conceptualise evolving Darwinian populations providing the inheritance mechanism is appropriately specified. By this approach, adaptation and selection are no longer dichotomised, and the evolutionary significance of knowledge transmission is highlightedPeer reviewe

Visualizing internetworked argumentation

In this chapter, we outline a project which traces its source of inspiration back to the grand visions of Vannevar Bush (scholarly trails of linked concepts), Doug Engelbart (highly interactive intellectual tools, particularly for argumentation), and Ted Nelson (large scale internet publishing with recognised intellectual property). In essence, we are tackling the age-old question of how to organise distributed, collective knowledge. Specifically, we pose the following question as a foil: In 2010, will scholarly knowledge still be published solely in prose, or can we imagine a complementary infrastructure that is ‘native’ to the emerging semantic, collaborative web, enabling more effective dissemination and analysis of ideas