E. Michael Nussbaum

Argument and conceptual engagement

Abstract Dole and Sinatra (1998) have argued that promoting the level of engagement necessary to facilitate conceptual change could be achieved by “weighing issues and arguments” (p. 121). The present study sought to test the efficacy of a conceptual change intervention based on argumentation. Participants who were asked to argue in favor of an alternative explanation of a physics problem (the scientific explanation) were more likely to show improved reasoning on that problem than control participants who were asked to solve the problem without argumentation. We argue that this intervention is consistent with other pedagogical techniques that promote conceptual change (such as conducting experiments and benchmark lessons, diSessa & Minstrell, 1998 , or generating self-explanations, Chi, 2000 ), in that it fosters high engagement and opportunities to juxtapose ideas, with the added advantage of ease of implementation and significant effects with little investment of instructional time.

Promoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing

It is important, when writing opinion essays, for students to consider and integrate both arguments and counterarguments to develop a final conclusion. In this article, the authors explored the effect of criteria instruction and a graphic organizer to promote integration of arguments and counterarguments. The researchers randomly assigned 84 participants from an undergraduate educational psychology course to 1 of 4 conditions: training only, organizer only, combined, and control. The graphic organizer resulted in more refutations of counterarguments. However, criteria instruction resulted in better integration of argument and counterargument (with stronger rebuttals and more balanced reasoning). The authors discussed how the 2 interventions may have activated somewhat different argumentation schema in students.

Role of Epistemic Beliefs and Scientific Argumentation in Science Learning

We hypothesized that instruction in the criteria of scientific arguments, in combination with constructivist epistemic beliefs, would produce greater learning about physics concepts. The study was a randomized experiment, where college undergraduates (n = 88) discussed, in pairs over the Web, several physics problems related to gravity and air resistance. Prior to their discussions, one‐half of the dyads received information on the nature of scientific arguments. All students were classified epistemologically as relativists, multiplists, or evaluativists. We found that students in the treatment group incorporated more scientific criteria into their discussion notes and accordingly developed better arguments on several dimensions. In addition, significantly more participants in the treatment group adopted the correct answer to one of the problems. Outcomes also differed in relation to students’ epistemic beliefs. Specifically, multiplists were less critical of inconsistencies and misconceptions, and interacted with their partners less than other belief groups, whereas evaluativists interacted more critically, bringing up different ideas from their partners. Evaluativists also solved one of the physics problems more accurately and tended to demonstrate a reduction in misconceptions. We discuss the results in light of instruction in scientific argumentation, conceptual development and change, and epistemic beliefs.

Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits

Abstract Because argumentation may promote deeper processing of content, this study examined factors affecting students’ dispositions to engage in argument, specifically epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraversion (assertiveness and warmth). An instrument developed by Infante and Rancer (1982) was used to measure dispositions to approach or avoid arguments. Subjects were 238 undergraduates who completed surveys of the relevant constructs. Contrary to expectation that epistemological beliefs would predict the approach component by affecting the perceived usefulness of argumentation, regression analysis indicated that epistemological beliefs instead predicted the avoidance component (as did a desire to maintain warm relationships). Need for cognition predicted the approach component, whereas assertiveness predicted both. The need to better understand why some students avoid arguments is discussed.

Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education

Toulmins model of argumentation, developed in 1958, has guided much argumentation research in education. However, argumentation theory in philosophy and cognitive science has advanced considerably since 1958. There are currently several alternative frameworks of argumentation that can be useful for both research and practice in education. These frameworks include Waltons dialogue theory and Bayesian models of everyday arguments. This article reviews and evaluates these frameworks and shows how each can be applied instructionally (e.g., through the teaching of critical questions or probability modeling) and, from a research standpoint, in evaluating the content and quality of informal arguments. It is concluded that attention to these and other contemporary argumentation frameworks can help move the study of argumentation in education forward.

Critical Questions and Argument Stratagems: A Framework for Enhancing and Analyzing Students' Reasoning Practices

This article explores the concepts of critical questions (from D. N. Walton, 1996) and integrative and refutational argument stratagems as an approach for teaching argumentation and critical thinking. A study was conducted for 6 months in 3 sections of a 7th-grade social studies classroom in which 30 students discussed and wrote about current events. One section served as a comparison group. Over time the experimental group made more arguments that integrated both sides of each issue. Collectively, the experimental group also successfully constructed salient critical questions, particularly in regard to weighing values and designing practical creative solutions. In-depth analysis of 1 student showed how conceptual structures and argument practices improved incrementally over time and how the appropriation of stratagems may have been facilitated by the dialectical nature of the intervention (e.g., using critical questions and stratagems successfully in discourse). The theoretical and practical importance of Waltons dialogue theory, and the critical question approach to argumentation, are discussed.

Enhancing the Validity and Usefulness of Large-Scale Educational Assessments: II. NELS:88 Science Achievement:

This study is second in a series demonstrating that achievement tests are multidimensional and that using psychologically meaningful subscores in national educational surveys can enhance test validity and usefulness. NELS:88 8th- and l0th-grade science tests were subjected to full information item factor analysis. Factors reflecting everyday knowledge, scientific reasoning, chemistry knowledge, and reasoning with knowledge were obtained in 8th grade. Quantitative science, spatial-mechanical, and basic knowledge and reasoning were distinguishable factors in 10th grade. Regression analyses showed that different patterns of prior math and science achievement, and of course taking, were associated with each l0th-grade science factor. Teacher emphasis on problem solving and understanding related more to quantitative science, and basic knowledge and reasoning. Spatial-mechanical reasoning showed the strongest gender and ethnicity effects; it related also to science museum visits but not to instructional variables. It is recommended that multidimensional achievement scores be used to capture student and teacher effects that total scores used alone miss.

Using Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) for Promoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Reflective Writing.

This study examined a new prewriting tool, argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs), which are used to write reflective opinion essays. AVDs are based on the theoretical concept of argument-counterargument integration, which involves evaluating and integrating both sides of an issue before developing a final conclusion on a controversial question. In a test of the effectiveness of AVDs, 45 undergraduates at a large, southwestern university were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Both groups wrote 4 opinion essays over a 4-week period. The experimental group also received training on using the AVDs, including instruction on criteria for weighing arguments. Results indicated that AVD training was effective in enhancing argument-counterargument integration. Furthermore, examination of integration strategies used by participants revealed a new strategy, minimization, which was not previously part of E. M. Nussbaum and G. Schraws (2007) argument-counterargument integration framework. Minimization involves curtailing the importance or extensiveness of a problem or advantage as a heuristic shortcut for weighing advantages and disadvantages. The role of critical questions and argumentation schemata in argument-counterargument integration is discussed.

PERSONALITY INTERACTIONS AND SCAFFOLDING IN ON-LINE DISCUSSIONS*

The potential of on-line discussions to prompt greater reflection of course material is often stymied by a tendency of students to agree with one another rather than to formulate counter-arguments. This article describes an experiment using note starters and elaborated cases to encourage counter-argumentation and examines interactions with personality characteristics. Participants were 48 undergraduates who wrote on-line discussion notes in response to two issues in educational psychology. Participants also completed a personality survey, based on McCrae and Costas (1997) five-factor personality model. There was a significant positive main effect of note starters on the frequency of disagreement, as well as personality-treatment interactions between note starters and several personality characteristics, The results suggest that note starters are most useful for students with low degrees of curiosity (“openness to ideas”) or assertiveness, and who are not overly anxious. Note starters appear to encourage students to consider other points of view during on-line discussions.

Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions

We examine the effect of online Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) on the quality of students’ argumentation during asynchronous, online discussions. With AVDs, students develop arguments on both sides of a controversial issue and then develop an integrated, overall final conclusion. In this study, students used AVDs individually before composing discussion notes, and then—at the end of the discussion—jointly created a group AVD using Wiki technology. Compared to a control group, the experimental intervention was found to significantly enhance the integration of arguments and counterarguments (specifically, compromises) and fostered opinion change. For AVDs to be effective, however, it was found to be necessary to include specific scaffolds on how to evaluate argument strength and/or to provide practice and feedback in using the AVDs.