Argument Components Research Articles

A semblance of freedom: Horkheimer and Adorno’s conception of myth

In this paper I argue that the pessimistic reading of Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, which suggests reason is ensconced within the domination of myth, misses a key component of the authors' argument. Specifically, it misses the possibility that the liberation from the heteronomy of myth might occur via a critique of myth. Using Owen Hulatt’s reinterpretation of Adorno’s account of the tension between mimesis and self-preservation as a point of orientation, I show that while myth for Horkheimer and Adorno is synonymous with a heteronomous form of life, they simultaneously recognize it as an incomplete but largely untapped mediator of the history of human experience (via language), and thus a promising source of rational self-knowledge. Specifically, myth can illuminate fragments of both the contingent factors that led to human sociality becoming entwined with domination, while also offering momentary reflections of the kinds of life that were relinquished in the drive for instrumentalised survival. I propose that for Horkheimer and Adorno it is myth’s linguistic mediation between a community of speakers and their (often violent and ambiguous) pasts that is unique. It is thus myth’s capacity to offer a meditation on those other possibilities of human existence that presents a renewed chance of enlightenment.

Improving argumentation quality on MOOC discussion forums: does learning to identify components of arguments help?

Constructive argumentation among learners is integral to effective learning. In the context of Massively Open Online Classes (MOOCs), such peer interactions can only occur in discussion forums, where they often prove to be sparse and of poor quality. To address these challenges, we developed and experimentally tested an intervention (nparticipants = 110, narguments = 270) aimed at improving the quality of learners’ written arguments in MOOC forums, taking into account MOOC platform constraints (e.g., self-paced participation and the impossibility of providing personalised feedback). In the first chapter of a management MOOC, participants randomly assigned to the experimental group (vs control) were introduced to the formal components of arguments: claims, justifications and qualifications. They were then asked to identify these components in a series of examples. We found no significant impact of this intervention on learners’ responses to individual open-ended questions directly following the intervention, or in their contributions to discussion forums. Instead, we observed variation in argument quality based on the specific questions prompting argumentation. Our findings prompt further discussion and exploration of strategies to enhance argumentation quality in MOOC discussion forums.

Differences in Scientific Argumentation Skills of Preservice Physics Teachers in Written and Oral Contexts: A Case Study of Video-Based Microteaching Learning

This study aims to analyze the profile of scientific argumentation skills of preservice physics teachers in the context of written case studies and oral presentations through video-based microteaching learning. Data was collected from 15 preservice physics teachers participating in a microteaching course. Qualitative analysis of argumentation components (claim, reason, evidence, rebuttal, conclusion) revealed significant differences in argumentation skills between the two contexts. In written case studies, students demonstrated a relatively good ability to present evidence. However, they needed to improve in formulating claims and reasons. Meanwhile, in oral presentations, there was a significant increase in all components of argumentation, particularly claims, reasons, rebuttals, and conclusions. These findings have important implications for developing more effective microteaching learning to improve the scientific argumentation skills of preservice physics teachers.

Влияние online-дискуссий на формирование навыков аргументации у будущих инженеров

The paper presents the results of empirical research on the effectiveness of online discussions (OD) as a tool for forming argumentation skills among technical university students. On the one hand the actuality of the research is conditioned by the significance of discussion-based training of modern technical specialists under conditions of networking and socio-technical transformation of engineering activity. On the other hand, this problem is not elaborated in the domestic, pedagogies and also contradictory and poorly studied aspects in the foreign one. The results of the present study are important for scientifically substantiated methodological implementation of new approaches to engineering training under conditions of digitalization of education and increased requirements for discussion and information competence of a modern technical specialist. The research was conducted on the basis of two Novosibirsk universities and covered 350 second – and third-year students in "construction" and "automation and computer engineering" baccalaureate specialties. The analysis of the OD results conducted in VLE "Moodle" using "debate" (synchronous discussion) and "forum" (asynchronous discussion) methods showed that inclusion of online-discussions in to the educational process of technical universities improves argumentation skills of future engineers by 20-30 %. The data obtained at the stages of the forming and control experiment let us reveal a higher efficiency of asynchronous forms of online-discussions in comparison with synchronous ones. Their advantage is to 28,68 %, depending on the formed component of argumentation. Based on the results of the study recommendations were given to teachers to improve the effectiveness of social interaction of students during OD, including the feasibility of replacing debates with synchronous discussion methods, more focused on the joint search for solutions.

Nature of science conceptions and argumentation skills in different socioscientific contexts

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the consistency of nature of science (NOS) conceptions and argumentation skills among undergraduate student teachers across different socioscientific issues (SSI) contexts. The participants included 80 undergraduate student teachers enrolled in a science methods course at six different universities in Lebanon. The study used a quantitative and qualitative design to compare the responses of students related to NOS and argumentation across different SSI contexts. Two data collection tools were used: questionnaires and interviews. The first questionnaire was a topic knowledge one and the second questionnaire included three scenarios that addressed SSI contexts about water fluoridation, global warming, and genetically modified food. Two sets of questions followed each scenario. The first set concentrated on the components of argumentation (arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals), while the other set focused on three emphasised NOS aspects (subjective, tentative, and empirical). Results showed that there were differences in the levels of student teachers’ sophistication regarding the argumentation components and NOS aspects across the different contexts. Recommendations for future research and implications for the teaching of NOS and arguments are discussed.

Students' Mathematical Argumentation with the Visualizer Cognitive Style in Proving the Congruence of Triangles

The use of axiomatic deductiveism, perception problems, mathematical visual representations and how students convey arguments as a bridge in proving geometric problems are obstacles that are often faced by students. This research aims to describe how prospective mathematics teacher students who have a visualiser cognitive style convey their mathematical arguments in explaining proofs related to triangle congruence. The subjects of this research were selected from students who have a visualizer cognitive style who had previously been given a cognitive style questionnaire. The research subjects consisted of 3 subjects, each with high (S1), medium (S2) and low (S3) mathematics abilities. Data were analyzed using Toulmin argumentation components. The research results show that S1 provides proof based on correct claims, providing fairly complete data both from the question statement and additional data resulting from the subject's reasoning which is used to decide on the claim. The subject uses several warrants and is supported by logical backing to connect the data with the claim. For S2 and S3 to provide final answers or false claims, they have incomplete data as a basis for deciding claims because the subject is mistaken in representing the image and is deep in mathematical literacy related to errors in describing the visualization in the image.

Exploring Prospective Preschool Teachers’ Argumentation Skills on the Greenhouse Effect

The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which prospective preschool teachers can develop arguments regarding the main contributors to the greenhouse effect, the intensity of the phenomenon across the earth’s surface and the consequences of global warming caused by the constant increase of the greenhouse effect. Participants were 93 students (prospective teachers) who had been provided with a number of data in order to be able to articulate claims and to develop reasoning to support them. Students’ argumentation components were categorized according to their content suitability, and relevant paths from data to claims were constructed. Results provide evidence for the capability of students to develop arguments based on the information and data available to them, revealing a number of misunderstandings in relation to the greenhouse effect and insufficient reasoning regarding their argumentation skills. Relevant improvements that could take place in preschool education departments and implications for science education are also discussed.

The Implementation of Collaborative Strategy in Teaching Students’ Speaking Skill

Effective communication relies heavily on one's speaking ability, which is crucial not only in one's native language but also foreign languages, especially challenging during the secondary school years. This study aimed to improve students' speaking comprehension through a collaborative learning approach. Using qualitative research methods, data were collected through questionnaires from eleventh grade students of SMAN 2 Muara Bungo in the 2023/2024 academic year. The sample consisted of one class, namely class XI IPA, which consisted of 36 students from a total population of 90 students. The findings demonstrate the efficacy of collaborative strategies in improving speaking comprehension, fostering students' confidence in articulating ideas during the learning process. Collaborative learning facilitates the production of more argument components, leading to a higher level of discourse. In addition, it enhances students' cognitive ability to remember, understand, apply and analyze information. Therefore, collaborative learning emerges as a promising classroom strategy to improve students' speaking comprehension. However, various challenges and variables affect students' success in utilizing collaborative strategies for English language learning.

Аргументативное развертывание текста парламентских выступлений на микроуровне (на материале французского языка)

The research aims to identify functional types of semantic dependence within a fragment of the text of parliamentary speeches – the argumentative component. The paper examines the notion of an argumentative component and identifies its main elements. To establish an intentionally determined semantic dependence within this text segment, the notion of an argumentative move (AM) is introduced, which is understood as a functional unit of the addresser’s general communicative strategy and which is aimed at realizing a specific communicative intention. The relations of the functional-semantic connection, updating its argumentative moves, as well as the linguistic means that represent them are described. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that based on the material of the French language, it typologizes the relations of semantic dependence at the micro level of the argumentative construction of the text of parliamentary speeches, taking into account the functional-communicative aspect. As a result of the research, the intentionally determined semantic relations typical for the corpus of texts under study were determined: proper causation (AM ‘causal basis’), nonproper causation (AM ‘argument’), consequence (AM ‘conclusion’), concession (AM ‘insufficient basis’), disjunctiveness (AM ‘expanded alternative’ and AM ‘alternative motivation’), their linguistic markers were identified and systematized.

ARGUMENTATIVE SUPERSTRUCTURE COMPONENT OF POPULAR SCIENCE SPEECHES

The article focuses on the argumentative superstructure component of popular science speeches. It includes three subcomponents (thesis, argument, demonstration). The thesis illustrates the position of the author of a popular science speech regarding the issue raised in the speech. The argument is a means of proving the statement. The demonstration is a means of explaining / clarifying the first two subcomponents. Thus, the function of the demonstration is to help the
 audience / listeners understand the full scope of the information contained in the thesis and argument. The palette of
 linguistic means marks the argumentative supercomponent and its subcomponents described in this article. Understanding superstructure generation mechanisms is necessary for translation & interpreting students in particular to remember large amounts of information better when interpreting.

Аргументативная структура текста парламентских выступлений (на материале французского языка)

The aim of the study is to identify the typological parameters of the argumentative structure of the text of parliamentary speeches. The paper examines the notion of argumentative structure, defines its main elements at the macro-level (the thesis and argumentative parts) and describes the relationships between them, identifying the typical speech forms of expression of these elements. The deployment of argumentation at the micro-level within the framework of the argumentative component is analyzed. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that based on the material of the French language, from the standpoint of communicatively oriented text linguistics, an analysis is carried out of the argumentative structure of the texts of parliamentary speeches aimed at convincing the addressee of the acceptability or unacceptability of a certain point of view on the political issue under discussion. As a result of the study, the following typological characteristics of the argumentative structure of the examined texts were established: intentionally determined hierarchical organization, variability manifested in different directions of the functional-semantic connection between its main elements. In addition, the results of the study made it possible to identify and systematize the functional-semantic relationships that arise within the argumentative component.

Does Context Affect Argument Quality and Informal Reasoning in Socio-scientific Issues?

This research aimed to assess the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities of pre-service science teachers concerning various socio-scientific issues, utilizing dilemma cards. The case study method, a qualitative research approach, was employed, involving 12 pre-service science teachers. Participants completed the dilemma cards over a 12-week period. The analytical procedure for these cards incorporated content analysis. Findings from the study indicated that participants were often unable to construct a comprehensive argument that considered all argumentative components, such as claim, evidence, support, and rebuttal. While some participants displayed a modicum of success in the components of claim, evidence, and support, they typically provided insubstantial examples in the rebuttal dimension. Upon examining the nature of arguments based on context, it was discerned that the quality of arguments about nuclear energy differed slightly from those about other socio-scientific issues. Nevertheless, context did not significantly influence the quality of arguments for 11 other socio-scientific topics. Furthermore, the study noted variations in the dimensions of informal reasoning across different socio-scientific issues. It was subsequently inferred that the context might influence informal reasoning. Additionally, it was observed that participants tended to focus more on the ecological dimensions of informal reasoning and less on the ethical-aesthetic dimensions. Recommendations were put forth to enhance both the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities.

Performance analysis of large language models in the domain of legal argument mining.

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) have recently demonstrated excellent performance in various natural language tasks. The development of ChatGPT and the recently released GPT-4 model has shown competence in solving complex and higher-order reasoning tasks without further training or fine-tuning. However, the applicability and strength of these models in classifying legal texts in the context of argument mining are yet to be realized and have not been tested thoroughly. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of GPT-like models, specifically GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, for argument mining via prompting. We closely study the model's performance considering diverse prompt formulation and example selection in the prompt via semantic search using state-of-the-art embedding models from OpenAI and sentence transformers. We primarily concentrate on the argument component classification task on the legal corpus from the European Court of Human Rights. To address these models' inherent non-deterministic nature and make our result statistically sound, we conducted 5-fold cross-validation on the test set. Our experiments demonstrate, quite surprisingly, that relatively small domain-specific models outperform GPT 3.5 and GPT-4 in the F1-score for premise and conclusion classes, with 1.9% and 12% improvements, respectively. We hypothesize that the performance drop indirectly reflects the complexity of the structure in the dataset, which we verify through prompt and data analysis. Nevertheless, our results demonstrate a noteworthy variation in the performance of GPT models based on prompt formulation. We observe comparable performance between the two embedding models, with a slight improvement in the local model's ability for prompt selection. This suggests that local models are as semantically rich as the embeddings from the OpenAI model. Our results indicate that the structure of prompts significantly impacts the performance of GPT models and should be considered when designing them.

Analysis of the relationship between students’ argumentation and chemical representational ability: a case study of hybrid learning oriented in the environmental chemistry course

Abstract Engaging students in collaborative learning fosters the expression of ideas, deepens understanding, and hones argumentation skills. Argumentation is pivotal, and instructors should facilitate opportunities for its practice. In the study on an environmental chemistry course, class conversations were recorded to analyze students’ contributions to online learning. Participants shared opinions, raised objections, and built on others’ answers. The instructor played a crucial role in harmonizing collaboration and guiding comprehensive argumentation. The study found claims and data as the most basic and common elements of argumentation. However, more complex components like rebuttal and backing warrants often need instructor intervention. While claims and data typically relied on one form of representation, such as macroscopic or symbolic, warrants demanded multiple dimensions, predominantly symbolic and submicroscopic. Toulmin’s arguments and Mahaffy’s tetrahedral ability of chemical representation were used for analysis. The findings highlighted that argumentation skills and chemical representation are intertwined, with certain argumentative components calling for specific representational dimensions. Collaborative online learning, thus, can enhance student participation and multifaceted skill development.

Adding transparency to uncertainty: An argument-based method for evaluative opinions

Over the past 15 years, digital evidence has been identified as a leading cause, or contributing factor, in wrongful convictions in England and Wales. To prevent legal decision-makers from being misled about the relevance and credibility of digital evidence and to ensure a fair administration of justice, adopting a balanced, systematic and transparent approach to evaluating digital evidence and disseminating results is crucial. This paper draws on general concepts from argumentation theory, combined with key principles and concepts from probabilistic and narrative/scenario approaches to develop arguments and analyse evidence. We present the “Argument-Based Method for Evaluative Opinions”, which is a novel method for producing argument-based evaluative opinions in the context of criminal investigation. The method may be used stand-alone or in combination with other qualitative or quantitative/statistical methods to produce evaluative opinions, highlighting the logical relationships between the components making up the argument supporting a hypothesis. To facilitate a structured assessment of the credibility and relevance of the individual argument components, we introduce an Argument Evaluation Scale and, ultimately, an Argument Matrix for a holistic determination of the probative value of the evidence.

Teaching argumentation with a dialogic stance: A case of an 11th-grade English language arts classroom

In this article, we present a case of teaching argumentation with a dialogic stance to explore how such teaching shapes what counts of argumentation and engages students in a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of argumentation. Adopting a microethnographic approach to discourse analysis, we closely examine the interactions in one argumentation lesson in a high school English class. The findings demonstrate that the teacher's enacted dialogic stance facilitates the construction of argumentation components as organically related and foregrounds argument as inherently connected to and among arguers. This study holds the potential to expand the landscape of the field of argumentation education.

How to Recognize Arguments? A Study of Human Negotiations

Different kinds of negotiations and presented arguments are considered in this paper. Discussions in the Parliament of Estonia as well as negotiation in telemarketing calls, travel, and everyday conversations are studied. In the Parliament, negotiation involves many participants while the other conversations take place between two participants. In the analyzed texts, argument components (premises and claims), argument structures (basic, linked, etc.), and relations (support, attack, and rebuttal) are annotated manually. For annotating dialogue acts (DAs), a customized typology and custom-made software is used. This preliminary study aims to find cues for recognizing arguments in Estonian texts automatically. It turns out that some DAs and language features contribute to the recognition of arguments and inter-argument relations.

Concept Map Instructional Techniques in the Deciding Stage - Project Based Learning on Students' Argumentation Skills

Argumentation is an assessment that identifies HOTs through collaborative learning activities. Learning that supports collaboration through project design is found in project-based learning at the deciding stage. Decisions in planning investigations tend to be less than optimal and the presentation of data at the deciding stage is incomplete so that it is optimized using the instructional concept map technique. The use of concept maps as an instructional technique guides students to find and relate concepts logically so as to stimulate argumentation skills because it explores critical thinking skills through activities of organizing, categorizing, analyzing, and reasoning. The research aims to analyze differences in students' argumentation skills from the use of concept map instructional techniques at the deciding stage – project-based learning. The research design was quasi-experimental. Determination of the sample using cluster random sampling of 70 students who are determined based on the paired F test. The research instrument consisted of an expert concept map and a matter of argumentation. Data on students' argumentation skills were obtained from an assessment that was arranged according to the argumentation component according to Toulmin (2003) is evidence, warrants, backing, qualifier, rebuttal, and claim a total of 11 questions. The data analysis technique used the t-test. The results of the hypothesis test show that the significance value is 0.001 (<0.05), so there are differences in students' argumentation skills from the use of the instructional concept map technique in the deciding – project-based learning stage. The argumentation skills of the students in the experimental class were better than the control class in argumentation components is evidence, rebuttal, and claim. The concept map instructional technique has aspects that can improve students' argumentation skill scores because it helps students focus on finding and connecting concepts based on evidence and data as a result of investigations

PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES AND TACTICS IN ENVIRONMENTAL TED TALKS

The article focuses on strategies, tactics and linguo-stylistic means of persuasion in such a prototypical speech genre of media environmental discourse as TED talks: the analysis of TED talks genre peculiarities is presented; the two main communicative strategies of media environmental discourse are identified – the strategy popularizing eco-friendly activities, and the strategy discrediting eco-unfriendly activities; depending on the argumentation principle employed, the three groups of tactics for expressing logos, ethos and pathos are singled out; the most frequent linguo-stylistic means of persuasion in environmental TED talks have been identified. The strategic approach emphasises that to achieve the desirable effect in public speaking within the TED format it is necessary to employ the combination of persuasive tactics to maintain a balance between the ethos, logos or pathos components of argumentation and provide a persuasive impact on the addressee increasing their environmental consciousness and promoting environmentally competent behaviour.

Students’ Argumentation through Mathematical Literacy Problems Based on Mathematical Abilities

Argumentation is an essential mathematical skill employed in mathematical literacy. Argumentation is an individual's ability to think critically to provide reasons based on facts to make conclusions that solve problems. A qualitative approach is used in this study to describe students' argumentation in solving mathematical literacy problems based on mathematics ability level. The research subjects were three twelfth-grade students: one with high mathematics ability, one with moderate mathematics ability, and one with low mathematics ability, which was selected purposively. Data are collected through mathematical literacy problem tests and interviews. The data are analyzed using McNeill and Krajcik's argumentation components: claim, evidence, reasoning, and rebuttal in solving mathematical literacy problems. The results showed that students with high mathematical abilities could formulate and perform the procedures at the evidence indicator; connect information for reasoning indicators; provide general solutions, represent and assess the mathematical solutions at the rebuttal indicators; and make a correct claim. Students with moderate mathematical ability could apply mathematical concepts although made a miscalculation at the evidence indicator; connect information for reasoning indicators; provide partially correct solutions; represent and evaluate the sufficiency of the mathematics solutions at the rebuttal indicator; and make a correct claim. Meanwhile, students with low mathematical ability miss a crucial concept and make miscalculations at the evidence indicator; connect information for reasoning indicators; provide and represent partially correct solutions but cannot evaluate the sufficiency of the mathematics solutions at the rebuttal indicator; provide a correct claim.
 Keywords: Argumentation, McNeill Argumentation, Mathematical Literacy Problems, Mathematical Abilities.