Argument Pattern Research Articles

A close look at children’s and adolescents’ arguments: combining a developmental, educational, and philosophical perspective

AbstractIt is broadly admitted that social contexts of reasoning may prompt children and adolescents to improve the quality of their reasoning. However, it is not clear how this quality may be assessed when it comes to arguments expressed within oral interactions in diverse settings (whole-class or small-group discussions) by students of different ages and cultural backgrounds. This study aims to offer a methodological contribution to the issue of oral argument assessment of children and adolescents, by looking at a large, annotated corpus of dialogic discussions during 111 lessons taking place in five countries. Our analysis combines a structural (Toulmin Argument Pattern) and functional (Walton’s argumentation schemes) approach to argumentative reasoning. Our findings show significant variations across age groups and social settings. The discussion points out the importance of sociocultural framing of argument reasoning development and the continuation of research in argument assessment methods able to grasp important developmental and cultural variations.

Analysing the evolution of argumentation quality among pre-service biology teachers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has become one of the most controversial issues in recent years. The pandemic’s impact on argumentation skills, crucial for science teachers, needs exploration to understand its effects on how they evaluate evidence and engage in discussions. This study investigated how biology pre-service teachers’ (PSTs) argumentation quality changed over the pandemic’s first two months of social distancing and quarantine. Using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) was employed to evaluate the arguments. Initially, nearly half of the participants demonstrated low-level arguments. However, during the second round of interviews, a decrease in Level 1 and 2 arguments and an increase in Level 3 arguments were observed. The observed improvements in argumentation quality, particularly in the use of counterclaims, warrants, and rebuttals, underscore the role of increased familiarity with the issue and exposure to diverse information sources. These findings suggest that real-life contexts, such as the pandemic, offer opportunities for PSTs to develop more sophisticated argumentation skills when exposed to multiple perspectives and ongoing engagement with the topic. Understanding these changes can inform teaching strategies and teacher training programmes, especially during global crises. Future research could examine argumentation quality related to issues such as vaccination and COVID-19 variants.

Does the Creative Problem-Solving Model Improve Students' Argumentation Skills?

Argumentation skills are one of the skills of the 21st century. The research aims to analyze students' achievement of argumentation skills using the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model on biodiversity material. Qualitative research with descriptive methods. The research subjects were class X students in one of the Bandung City schools. The purposive sampling technique used 30 students. The argumentation skills question instrument is based on Toulmin's Argumentation Pattern which has level 1-5 criteria containing 12 essay questions. The research results showed that the students' strongest argumentation skills were at level 3 at 63.3 Percent with sufficient criteria and the weakest at level 1 and level 5 with very weak criteria. The criteria for level 1 are very weak, level 2 is weak, level 3 is sufficient, level 4 is strong, and level 5 is very strong. It is important for other education experts to acquire argumentation skills in the learning process.

Andromeda: A model-connected framework for safety assessment and assurance

Safety is a key factor in the development of critical systems, encompassing both conventional types, such as aircraft, and modern technologies, such as autonomous vehicles. Failures during their operation can be potentially far-reaching and impact people and the environment. To certify these systems and enable their employment, regulatory bodies require, among others, a safety case. However, the growing complexity of modern systems and iterative nature of development pose significant challenges to the traditional approaches for creating safety cases that are still used in practice. Furthermore, safety cases are often generated in an ad-hoc manner and remain disconnected from system models and related artifacts. Without these connections it is difficult to construct the proper infrastructure for producing and maintaining safety cases in a structured manner throughout the system lifecycle. This paper presents our innovative method, Andromeda, and its underpinning metamodel, which establish connections between safety cases, system models, safety assessment activities aligned with international safety standards, and argument patterns. Automation is applied across various stages of the production of argument structures that support safety assurance and certification activities. Andromeda is complemented by tool-support designed to facilitate its application, and we demonstrate our work through a case study from the aviation industry.

Möglichkeiten der Verknüpfung qualitativer und quantitativer Zugänge – Narrative von Wasserstoff

Narratives (defined as a discursive structure based on local and temporal indications and actors as part of a development of action helping to solve problems) are similar to linguistic phenomena such as metaphors or argumentative patterns usually analyzed in qualitative linguistic research. In this paper, our idea is to combine these qualitative linguistic methods with quantitative corpus linguistic approaches such as named entity recognition (NER). We present a pilot study in which we use current NER technology to semi-automatically detect the narrative of energy partnership in media discourse. Based on a manual pre-study of a part of our corpus, we defined detectable expressions with a semantic relation to the subject that we link to occurrences of the narrative. Our study shows that the automatic detection of narratives still proves to be difficult, yet using NER we could identify pre-defined narratives in our corpus. This shows that quantitative approaches can support qualitative text analysis and should therefore be considered when working with digital corpora to gain extensive insights into the material.

Unleash the Apparatus?

Philological text editions that are ‘born digital’ can and should be linked to other primary sources and, ideally, this happens within an ecosystem of clear and short IRIs. Yet, linking a text to other texts has always been a common practice in critical editing: by putting notes into the source apparatus, the editor constructs parallels between the text being edited and other primary texts. This paper explores how to formalize the knowledge contained in source apparatuses of existing editions. Based on the analysis of existing proposals and on the experiences of the OTRA project (Ontology for Re-Use and Argumentative Patterns), I propose five descriptive dimensions that allow modelling the knowledge that is already contained in the source apparatus. Setting up this infrastructure based on Linked Open Data would allow distributing its creation and federating its hosting among different actors such as libraries, archives, and museums.

The Limits of Plato’s Test

Abstract Aristotle is often taken to define priority in being in Metaphysics Δ.11, where he says that those things are prior in being which “admit of being without other things, while these others cannot be without them: a division which Plato used” (1019a3-4). But Aristotle’s pattern of arguments about priority – some of which use Plato’s Test and others of which use distinct, causal tests – looks puzzling if Plato’s Test is his definition. This paper offers a new interpretation of Δ.11 on which it offers a guide to the Aristotelian use of Plato’s Test, given that being is said in many ways, rather than endorsing it as Aristotle’s own definition of priority. This reading illuminates Aristotle’s pattern of arguments in the corpus – explaining why Aristotle uses Plato’s Test in some cases and departs from it in others – and suggests a plausible story about how these arguments were shaped by engaging with Plato.

The effects of instruction on students’ argumentative scientific writing in a Basque medium of instruction setting

Abstract The present quasi-experimental study explores the effects of instruction on secondary students’ scientific argumentative writing in a Basque medium of instruction program. Secondary students (N = 105) completed written tasks before and after a unit on energy in their science class as part of this investigation. The experimental group (n = 61) additionally took part in three, one-hour sessions focused on scientific argumentation via instruction in cognitive discourse functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2013), while the control group (n = 44) completed the unit on energy without the additional instruction on argumentation. The final corpus of 210 texts was analysed using Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (1958). ANOVAs showed that the experimental group’s use of argumentation strategies increased significantly, while the control group’s use of such strategies did not increase. Thus, the results show that instruction on argumentation helps students to write better argumentative compositions. These findings suggest that instruction in the use of Cognitive Discourse Functions allows for academic language learning in bilingual education contexts. The pedagogical implications and future research directions of this study’s findings are discussed.

Student judges’ criteria for evaluating classmate pre-service chemistry teachers’ arguments developed in a remote simulated jury activity

ABSTRACT Although research has studied argumentation in science learning, it is necessary to understand the criteria teachers and students apply to evaluate arguments in the context of classroom production. Researchers have employed Toulmin's argument pattern as the preferred model to analyze arguments. However, the model is unfeasible for people to evaluate arguments while arguing or immediately after the discussion. This study explored the criteria two student judges applied to evaluate classmate pre-service chemistry teachers' arguments developed in a remote simulated jury. We applied a multi-level method for discourse analysis, affording key findings: (1) Student judges developed a symmetrical shared-built explanation, an unprecedented finding as discourse analysts consider asymmetry an inherent feature of explanations; (2) They applied diverse criteria to evaluate the arguments; (3) Evaluation activity was accomplished through interactive-explanation-related discursive procedures, such as informing about issues related to the evaluations; asking for confirmation and clarification; presenting arguments developed and silenced in the simulated jury. Implications include a set of exemplary criteria for teachers to evaluate students' arguments and instruct them on how to evaluate arguments. In conclusion, we discuss the relevance of the findings and the multi-level method for the science education research community, providing new ways to analyze instructional discourse.

Consolation Through Argumentation? Prototypical and Stereotypical Argumentative Patterns in Secular Eulogies

Consolation Through Argumentation? Prototypical and Stereotypical Argumentative Patterns in Secular Eulogies

Science Articles in "The Conversation Indonesia": Identifying Argumentative Patterns and Predicting Their Contribution to Science Journalism in Indonesia

In this paper, the authors investigate argument activities of the journalism of The Conversation Indonesia (TCID). Taking into consideration five elements of argumentation —philosophical component, theoretical component, empirical component, analytical component, and practical component—this study identifying patterns argument that characterize of 41 science articles in 2021 by using qualitative content analysis. To complete the data, we conducted in-depth interviews with the chief of editor/content director of TCID. We also conducted an extensive review of current literature. This paper finds that most of the science articles reported by TCID uses 3 component arguments, namely the philosophical component, the empirical component, and the practical component. This shows that the authors only have a degree of wanting to form knowledge at a moderate level. Other data shows not all writers present predictive arguments in themselves. Only 80% of authors present predictive arguments. We argue that science journalism practiced by TCID is not passionate about building knowledge among its readers. It has not succeeded in promoting Indonesian science journalism as a means of forming readers' knowledge. Therefore, strong efforts are needed to ensure that science journalism can ground research results that shape readers' knowledge.

“So I know how to do this”

Abstract Debates are important events during presidential elections in the U.S.A. Candidates are juxtaposed and engage with each other on a wide range of issues. This poses the question how disagreement between the two candidates and the public is managed. The aim of this paper is to articulate the prototypical argumentative pattern used by candidates which shows that to defend that the public should vote for them, candidates recurringly make three central claims. Specifically, they claim that some political action has to happen, they will do that action if elected, while their opponent will not. This basic argument scheme – which could be referred to as campaign promise argumentation – is further expanded by candidates by responding to six distinct critical questions, resulting in a prototypical argumentative pattern designed to deal with potential criticisms against a bid to become president.

Toulmin Model Based Argument Diagnosing: Constructing and Evaluating in The Argumention Essay in Indonesia Efl Text Book

This research aims to describe and explain Toulmin's argument patterns in the 2017 revised edition of the 2017 High School English textbook for class XI curriculum. This type of research is qualitative research using document analysis methods. The subject of this research is the 2017 revised edition of the 2013 curriculum 2013 high school English textbook. This book was written by Herman Benyamin. The object of this research is Toulmin's argument pattern. Analysis of the arguments in the discourse in the book is based on Toulmin's arguments whose components consist of Claim (C), Ground (G), Warrant (W), Backing (B), Qualifier (Q), and Rebuttal (R). After finding a pattern in each discourse, a conclusion is given. The results of this research show that this book contains patterns formed in discourse. From the results of Toulmin's argument analysis, in topic 1, patterns C (10%), RC (10%), GC (10), GQC (10%), GWC were found. (10%), GWBC (10%), GWQC (10%), GWRC (10%), GWBQC (10), GWBQRC (10%), Topic 2 is in C (14.3%), RC (0), GC (14.3%), GQC (14.3%), GWC (14.3%), GWBC (14.3%), GWQC (14.3%), GWRC (0%), GWBQC (14.3%), GWBQRC (0%). Discourse that does not have an argument is 20% and there are arguments that are not good according to Toulmin's argument. According to Toulmin, a good argument from this book is 85%, meaning that the presentation of this argument in the 2013 edition of the high school English textbook issued by the government can be said to be very good

The development of mathematical argumentation: A case study on two mathematics classrooms

Mathematical reasoning has been a critical concern in Turkey especially since the structure of the student selection examination for high schools changed six years ago. The ability to solve the questions in the new exam requires high level reasoning and argumentation skills. Schools, whether they are public or private, prepare 8th graders for this exam with intense educational programs. They frequently use skill-based questions–similar questions to the ones in the new exam, which require high level mathematical reasoning. This study indicates that students gain better mathematical reasoning skills in learning environments promoting collective discussion and argumentation. Hence, these questions need to be solved in these kinds of environments. In this study, two cases are analyzed to understand the argumentation process in classrooms in depth. Audiotapes of two 8<sup>th</sup> grade classrooms, one from a public school, another from a private school, are analyzed. The same teaching material–a worksheet including skill-based questions–is used in the classrooms. During analyzing, qualified argumentation pattern–a pattern including students’ claims and justifications/evaluations for those claims- is defined. Analysis of classroom audiotapes revealed that that there are significant differences between two classrooms’ argumentation structure and type of dialogues emerged in the classroom. In one classroom there is a more qualified argumentation process than in the other classroom. In addition, analysis of the type of the dialogues indicates that two classrooms have different types of dialogues. Overall, the study reveals that despite the differences, both classrooms mostly included teacher-individual interactions and they have little collective discussion.

Fostering argumentation skills through project of STEM-Engineering Design process

This study aims to explore students' ability to form argumentation patterns based on aspects of Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-based learning. Data collection was carried out through STEM-based worksheet which has 12 argumentation items that are in accordance with the Engineering Design Process (EDP) stages. The data was then analyzed qualitatively. This research was conducted at one of the junior high schools in Samarinda City in the even semester of the 2022/2023 academic year. The population in this study were all students of grade VII totaling 9 classes with a sample of grade VII-F consisting of 32 students. The results showed that the students' argumentation patterns consisted of several patterns, namely, Claim Data (C-D); Claims, Data, Warrants (C-D-W); Claims, Data, Warrants, Backing (C-D-W-B); Claim, Data, Warrant, Backing, and Rebuttal (C-D-W-B-R) with the C-D pattern is the most common argumentation pattern. Students still need to be facilitated with learning that can guide students in forming more complex arguments so that an argumentation pattern is formed that includes warrant, backing, and rebuttal aspects.

Argument Patterns in Redox Reaction and Electrochemistry Topics in a High School Textbook

Presenting teaching material in an argumentative manner makes it easier for students to understand it. This study aimed to describe and explain Toulmin’s argument patterns, their percentages, the quality of arguments, and incorrect arguments in the redox reactions and electrochemistry topic in one high school chemistry textbook. The research method was document analysis. Validity was tested by triangulation among three researchers. The results showed that the patterns of Toulmin’s arguments of two, three, and four elements were 51%, 34%, and 6%, respectively. The two-element argument patterns consisted of CG and GC. The three-element argument patterns comprised CGW, GWC, CWG, WCG, and GCW. The four-element argument patterns comprised GCWB, CGWB, GWCB, and CGWR. The quality of the arguments according to the parameters of the Toulmin Argumentation Protocols (TAP) varied from medium to high. In contrast, the quality based on the Quality of Argument Structure Rubric (QASR) parameters varied from fair to excellent. There were five claims, eight grounds, and two warrants that were not precise or incomplete. Most of the arguments were well written, but there were many shortcomings in providing explanations. This topic needs to be supplemented with more elements of arguments. Keywords: argument patterns, redox reactions, electrochemistry, textbook

Die öffentliche Aushandlung von Expertise: Wissenschaftsblogs als Ort eristischer Verständigung? Exploratorischer Einstieg in ein Forschungsprojekt

Abstract In this paper, we present a joint research project on communication practices in science blogs that focuses on the negotiation of expertise against the background of potentially divergent expectations of the participants. The object of analysis are the blogposts and comments of the blog portal “SciLogs – Tagebücher der Wissenschaft” (maintained by Spektrum-Verlag since 2000), which will be examined for patterns of language and argumentation using both corpus linguistic and hermeneutic methods of analysis. First explorative approaches, as we present them here in form of a first glimpse on tri-grams, their frequencies and their context, indicate, that – despite the sometimes heated debates – a largely politely conducted communication (distance communication), constructing a kind of stylistic common ground, take place about what is usual, good and right “in der Wissenschaft” [in science] from the different perspectives meeting here and who is (or is not) “in der Lage” [able] to follow the scientific argumentations or to contribute to them constructively.

Argumentation Skills of Pre-Service Physics Teachers: An Exploration During a STEM Project in Water Turbidity

Pre-service physics teachers (PSPTs) should have an established argumentation skill, a recognized skill in 21st-century education, to support learning. In line with this, the study explored the argumentation skills of PSPTs using an argumentation framework, Toulmin’s argument pattern (TAP), to provide a clear view of the argumentation skills of the 39 PSPTs who were involved in a four-meeting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project. The study employed a mixed method research design in which the quantitative portion investigated the categories of TAP aspects, and the qualitative portion focused on exploring the argumentation patterns of the PSPTs. The data for this study was derived from the STEM project worksheets answered by the pre-service teachers. Quantitative analysis revealed PSPTs' argumentation aspect to be high regarding the claim aspect (97.44%) and data aspect (94.87%). Meanwhile, the warrant aspect (53.85%) is moderate, backing (20.51%) is low, and the rebuttal aspect (2.56%) is deficient. On the other hand, the qualitative analysis showed that PSPTs make four argumentation patterns: claim data (C-D); claim, data warrant (C-D-W); claim, data, warrant, backing (C-D-W-B); and claim, data, rebuttal (C-D-R). Considering TAP, quantitative and qualitative findings imply that PSPTs' argumentation skills still need to be developed, particularly on low-level aspects and in constructing a solid argument following the claim, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal pattern

A CASE STUDY OF ARGUMENT PATTERNS IN JAPAN AND KOREAN EFL LEARNERS’ ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

Argumentation is crucial in education in activating students’ critical thinking and increasing their ability in thinking reflectively. TAP model as an integrated assessment framework could be used to measure their critical thinking. Thus, the aims of the study are (1) to identify the elements of the argument structures in the Japanese and Korean EFL learners’ argumentative essays, based on the (adapted) Toulmin model, (2) to evaluate the quality of the Japanese and Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing based on the uses of the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP), and (3) to determine whether female and male learners have the same or different quality of argument pattern. A qualitative descriptive research design and a library research approach were carried out on this study to answer the research questions. Library research was used to collect sources and evaluate the sources taken from the ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. The data sources were the Japanese and Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Based on the quality of arguments, all students covered 1–4 levels. The highest was level 2, and the lowest was level 4. It tends to be the majority of students who are still in level 2. It needs practice to write argumentatively in order to shape the writing ability to organize a good surface structure and acceptable arguments.

Analyzing argumentation patterns in political discourse for better policy design

ABSTRACT A new policy is needed to manage Switzerland’s increasing urbanization and growing population. The second stage of the revision of the Swiss Spatial Planning Law, which has been ongoing since 2014, aims to create the legal framework to reduce or prevent the negative consequences of soil sealing, such as loss of biodiversity or urban sprawl. The revision process is characterized by substantial opposition among the actors involved; an acceptable draft revision is not conceivable. Using a structuring qualitative discourse analysis, we coded the consultation responses from the three consultation processes to date. We based our code system on acceptance factors existing in the literature and analyzed the content of the consultation responses over time and by actor. The results show that while a consensus on the instruments of the policy is emerging, there is great disagreement about the exact design and the resulting effects on the actors involved. The relative advantage of the policy and its compatibility with existing regulations are not sufficiently elaborated and presented in a comprehensible way. Ultimately, we identify several patterns of argumentation that should be considered by the policy-makers involved in the further revision, especially to address the critical arguments of the cantons and municipalities. Highlights Points of conflict and consensus during policy design were identified using QDA. Structuring the content of the policy discourse can support consensus-building. Typical argumentation patterns for opposing or accepting a policy were identified. Growing consensus entails shifts of actor conflicts from mid- to low-level topics. Relative advantage of a policy solution is key to increasing its acceptability.