Argumentative Competence Research Articles

Comparing logistic regression and extreme gradient boosting on student arguments

<p>Identifying the effectiveness level and quality of students' arguments poses a challenge for teachers. This is due to the lack of techniques that can accurately assist in identifying the effectiveness and quality of students' arguments. This research aims to develop a model that can identify effectiveness categories in students' arguments. The method employed involves the logistic regression+XGBoost algorithm combined with separate implementations of term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) and CountVectorizer. Student argument data were collected and processed using natural language processing techniques. The research results indicate that TF-IDF outperforms in identifying effectiveness classes in student arguments with an accuracy of 66.20%. The multi-output classification yielded an accuracy of 89.32% in the initial testing, which further improved to 92.34% after implementing one-hot encoding. A novel finding in this research is the superiority of TF-IDF as a technique for identifying effectiveness classes in student arguments compared to CountVectorizer. The implications of this research include the development of a model that can assist teachers in identifying the effectiveness level of students' arguments, thereby improving the quality of learning and enhancing students' argumentative competence.</p>

Understanding, Evaluating, and Promoting the Development of Argumentative Competence: An Interview With Dr. Deanna Kuhn From Teachers College, Columbia University

Purpose The purpose of this study is to promote the understanding of the nature, development, and evaluation of argumentative competence so that teachers can feel more confident about incorporating argumentative activities into their teaching practices and assess and cultivate students’ argumentative competencies more effectively. Design/Approach/Methods The authors invited Dr. Deanna Kuhn to elaborate on her research findings and theoretical underpinnings regarding her 30 years of research that combined educational, psychological, and philosophical perspectives to conduct argumentation studies. Findings She asserted that argument should be studied not only as an individual skill but also as a social and cultural practice. She promoted the dialogic argumentation approach as a pathway for developing argumentative competence. She also emphasized that an integrated framework that links the cognitive, metacognitive, epistemological, and affective aspects of argumentative competence holds great promise to advance not only the theoretical study of argumentation but also the related empirical research, classroom practices, and evaluation reforms. Originality/Value Dr. Kuhn clarified key issues regarding the nature and development of argumentative competencies and elaborated on the values and implementations of the dialogic argumentation approach across cultures. She suggested that future researchers should study argumentation within a more integrative framework.

Didactics of written argumentation with Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) students at university level in Algeria.

The general objective of this research is to investigate the impact of a program focusing on the development of argumentation techniques on the improvement of critical essays by SFL students at the University of Algiers 2. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study was carried out, where the indicators of textual levels obtained by the students were evaluated and compared, both before and after a learning intervention. The study involved 126 students studying SFL at the University of Algiers 2, whose essays were analyzed using Parodi and Núñez's (1999) analysis guidelines, in order to evaluate the students' argumentative competence at the three levels of microstructure, macrostructure and superstructure. Once the results were analyzed, statistically significant differences were observed in the indicators of the macrostructure, and superstructure. Furthermore, an improvement in the post-test means is observed in the indicators of these microstructure. Lastly, the intervention program strengthened students' argumentative abilities, which had a significant effect on their critical essays.

Oral argumentation and language-aware civic education – a theoretical proposal

Abstract Oral argumentative competence is highly relevant for responsible [mündige] participation in social negotiation processes. Thus, promoting argumentative competence is central to civic education. However, there is a lack of theoretical concepts and empirical findings which can guide action in the civic education classroom. Since argumentative competence is a linguistic skill, the concept of language-aware civic education offers itself as a plausible framework. In this article, the two terms oral argumentative competence and language-aware subject teaching are clarified within the context of civic education. It is shown how subject-specific oral argumentative competence can be fostered through language-aware civic education.

Why are certain items more difficult than others in a competency test for music–related argumentation?

This paper examines why certain items in a competency test for music-related argumentation are more difficult than others. Based on previous studies on school-related achievement tests, the authors assume that differences in item difficulty are related to different item characteristics or combinations of characteristics. In this study, the item characteristics of a test for music-related argumentation were first identified and coded. Three domains were identified as contributing to item difficulty: cognitive requirements, knowledge, and formal item features. Second, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted with the item characteristics as predictors of item difficulty, which had been estimated in a prior study. A comparison of three regression models confirmed that the model holding four predictors of the domain “cognitive requirements” best fit the study dataRadj2=0.71. The strongest predictor in the final model was “reference to musical attributes” β=0.46,β=0.51, followed by “cross-sentence argumentation” β=0.37 and “dialogical argumentation” β=0.20. These results indicate that the difficulty of an item increased most when participants had to refer to musical attributes to solve the task. The items that required the participants to provide cross-sentence or dialogical argumentation were more challenging as well. The findings regarding the relations between item characteristics and item difficulty contribute to a better understanding of music-related argumentative competence, with important implications for the music classroom.

Creating the (School’s) Future. Imagination, Prediction and Argumentative Competence

Creating the (School’s) Future. Imagination, Prediction and Argumentative Competence

Adolescents’ reasoning to manage fake news

This study draws on literature on argumentation and critical thinking. Its main goal is to analyse teenagers’ critical thinking to manage scientific information in social networks. We analysed 95 ninth graders’ quality of argumentation on their degree of agreement and their degree of credibility of a fake news item. The design included a dependent variable (argumentative competence), two independent variables (degree of agreement, degree of credibility) and a covariate (reading comprehension). A significant correlation was found between the degree of agreement and the degree of credibility. In addition, the degree of credibility decreases significantly as reading comprehension increases. Students who positioned themselves against the claim of the fake news and those who did not believe it showed higher argumentative quality in their texts than those who both agreed with and believed it. These results bring evidence of the confirmation bias claim when we apply it to fake news. We tend to accept information that confirms our prior beliefs uncritically. Similarly, 83% of those who did not believe the content of the news would consult an additional text, compared to 62.5% of those who agreed with it. This is a result that highlights the urgency of implementing educational guidelines to help students develop critical skills to manage fake news.

Аргументативный потенциал аналогии в дискурсе гуманитарных наук

The article reveals the functions of various types of analogy in argumentative discourse, substantiates the criteria for the effectiveness of reasoning by analogy in scientific argumentation. The study is carried out on the basis of scientific and humanitarian texts extracted from peer-reviewed journals. It is established that a wide functional range of analogous reasoning is formed by two meanings: proper argumentative and paraargumentative. The proper argumentative role of analogy provides its use as a special type of argumentation schemes. The analogous scheme is associated with a rational impact on the addressee and is implemented through a literal analogy. It performs the following functions: cognitive, evidential, heuristic, interpretive, normative and axiological. The paraargument value of the analogy lies in the fact that it, being outside the argumentative construction, supports the argument, enhancing the persuasive effect. This pragmatic intention is achieved through an indirect analogy, which affects the addressee through a figurative-emotional channel. Figurative analogy is used for visual explanation, popularization of presentation, emotional rapprochement with the addressee, psychological intensification of argumentative influence. If the normative criteria for evaluating analogous argumentation are violated, fallacies arise that are qualified as incorrect use of argumentative schemes or as tactical errors. Understanding the pragmatic specifics of different types of analogy, the ability to apply them in scientific communication is considered as an essential component of the argumentative competence of the subjects of humanitarian discourse.

Argumentation as a discourse practice (Didactic and Linguistic concepts)

Argumentative competence, written or oral argumantation skills are essential in the process of academic non-academic communication. Raising this competence is of particular importance in the education process, which ultimately focuses on promoting the development of general, intercultural communication and stratehic learning skills.The competence to create an argumentative text is complex and includes different dimensions, which means the selection, construction, grouping of arguments, the proper conduct of argumentative reasoning. The systematization of the various concepts and respectives contained in it allows the arguments to be divided into two groups: speaker-oriented and interaction-oriented.Argumentative discussions and organized discussions processes generate discourse that is equated with the notion of community. Argumentation from the perspective of discourse analysis is a discource practice, which is realized in a specific context (contextualized), arises interactively, develops, models and is perceived by the participants in the interaction as argumentation. Strategic reasoning skills, as a discourse practice, instill in everyone in a particular society, in a particular discourse area, mandatory and important knowledge for all and form a solid system of thinking that ultimately leads to reasoned discussions processes.

Argumentative Skills

In this paper, we propose a framework for fostering argumentative skills in a systematic way in Philosophy and Ethics classes. We start with a review of curricula and teaching materials from the German-speaking world to show that there is an urgent need for standards for the teaching and learning of argumentation. Against this backdrop, we present a framework for such standards that is intended to tackle these difficulties. The spiral-curricular model of argumentative competences we sketch helps teachers introduce the relevant concepts and skills to students early on in their school career. The focus is on secondary schools, but the proposal can also be of use for learning and teaching in universities, especially in introductory classes.

A Case Study on the Development of Chinese EFL Debaters’ Argumentative Competence

This study aims to explore and analyze the argumentative competence of Chinese debaters by observing the fallacies they made in one semester’s English debate course. The 8 rounds of debates are selected, of which three teams participated in 2 of the prepared debates and 2 fixed impromptu debates respectively. It is evident that of the five categories of fallacies, relevance-related, sufficiency-related and acceptability-related fallacies were the most common fallacies compared with structural-related fallacies and rebuttal-related fallacies. In prepared debate, the debaters’ argumentative skills in relevance, sufficiency, acceptability, structure, and rebuttal improved but in impromptu debate, this trend did not exist, revealing the debaters’ argumentative competence was unstable and varied from team to team.

A New Measurement Instrument for Music-Related Argumentative Competence: The MARKO Competency Test and Competency Model

In this paper, we introduce the MARKO competency test and competency model, a new measurement instrument for music-related argumentative competence (MARKO: Musikbezogene ARgumentationsKOmpetenz; German for music-related argumentative competence). This competence, which plays an essential role in school curricula, refers to the ability to justify, and defend judgments about music. The two main goals of this study were 1) to design an assessment test for music-related argumentation that fulfills psychometric criteria and 2) to derive competency levels based on empirical data to describe the cognitive dispositions that are necessary when engaging in argumentation about music. Based on a theoretical framework, we developed a competency test to assess music-related argumentative competence. After two pretests (n= 391), we collected data from 440 students from grade nine to the university level. The final test consisted exclusively of open-ended items, which were rated with coding schemes that had been designed for each item. After ensuring inter-rater reliability, we composed an item pool that met psychometric criteria (e.g., local stochastic independence and item homogeneity) and represented content-related aspects in a meaningful way. Based on this item pool, we estimated a one-dimensional partial credit model. Following a standard-setting approach, four competency levels were derived from the empirical data. While individuals on the lowest competency level expressed their own opinions about the music by referring to salient musical attributes, participants on the highest level discussed different opinions on the music, and considered the social and cultural context of the music. The proficiency scores significantly varied between grades. Our findings empirically support some theoretical assumptions about music-related argumentation and challenge others.

Fostering critical reasoning: Developing argumentative competence in early and middle primary years

Fostering critical reasoning: Developing argumentative competence in early and middle primary years

The relationship between the development of innovative thinking and argumentative competence

This article examines the need to develop the skills of students to be able to justify their position, to prove and make sound decisions, and to implicitly incorporate the principles of argumentative theory and practice into many subjects taught in higher education. In addition, the rapid development of new areas of public life, in particular the need to train more professionals to influence people's beliefs in areas such as education, politics, jurisprudence, philosophy, religion and psychology, highlights the need for special research on ways to influence beliefs.

Philosophy (and argumentation) for children: some reflection for primary school

Through the exercise of inquiry and thinking together, a number of studies promote philosophy at school within the dialogical context. The Philosophy for Children curriculum and other Philosophy with Children experiences all around the world spearheaded on promoting dialogical contexts in school with the aim of foster a high-order thinking. The P4C became the standard reference for revision of curricula and teaching practices, on the one hand, through enhancing thinking and reasoning skills, and, on the other, by promote a democratic space and the exercise of citizenship. With a complex - thinking model and with a community of inquiry framework, Lipman (2003) upholds the idea that thinking does not consist of just reasoning or logic itself, but it is performed by different dimensions of thought, intra- and inter-personal. The thinking space that a philosophical discussion could in fact open supports the exercise of reasoning in communities of inquiry that promote cognitive, social and civic competence. Acknowledging the crucial role of the rational and social dimensions of thinking, scholarly research that investigates “argumentation” in children and in school settings is growing. Consistently with studies in Argumentation and Education , in this paper we will refer to “argumentation” as a fundamental way of reasoning and a social practice which finds the ideal context in which it can develop in the discussion (Mirza, Perret-Clermont, 2009). Philosophical and psycho-pedagogical studies recognize argumentation as an essential actor in the construction of thought and in the structuring of new knowledge, in content understanding and in the creation of contextual connections, in the dynamic of relationship, in the engagement of various metacognitive processes (Rapanta et al., 2013). Rational and social aspects of argumentative competence could be fostered in a philosophical context at primary school age. In consideration of the need to promote social and civic competences and based on the definition of discussion as the ideal context to promote argumentation and to practice democracy, it becomes important to raise teacher’s awareness of the key importance of argumentation. Recognizing some relevant perspectives in Argumentation and Education , this paper attempts to highlight several theoretical and methodological questions that are relevant to Philosophy for/with Children and to teacher and facilitator training.

The Importance Of The Discussion Method In The Development Of Argumentative Competence In Students

This article discusses the importance of using debate as a teaching method in mastering key technologies to improve students’ argumentative competence. At the same time, the ability to argue constructively is interpreted as the ability to perform various argumentative actions to substantiate or refute certain points of view. The article presents the characteristics of argumentative skills, as well as the conditions for the formation of logical and psychological components of debate, which is one of the specific manifestations of argumentation.

From flat propositions to deep co-constructed and modalized argumentations

Drawing on a corpus of 180 peer discussions of second, fourth and sixth graders in German-speaking Swiss elementary schools (ages 7–12), we comment on three aspects of oral argumentative competence: (1) giving reasons, (2) argumentative complexity and co-constructions, and (3) modalization of arguments. We combine qualitative and quantitative analyses, both based in the approach of conversation analysis, and show that, as children get older, they not only give more reasons for their arguments, but also match them to their partner’s perspective, modalize their different standpoints to a greater extent, and produce arguments that are more complex and co-constructed. We observe a bigger change in these argumentative practices between the second and fourth grades than between the fourth and sixth.

El análisis de datos textuales como metodología para el abordaje de la argumentación: una investigación con estudiantes de pregrado en universidades chilenas

This article aims to show how textual data analysis can be applied to the study of argumentation. This is an alternative methodology allowing to trace back massive qualitative data standing for cognitive skill displays, the analysis of which would allow to provide feedback, for instance, to the educational system. Textual data analysis was done in two key dimensions of argumentative competence, namely, counter-argumentation and epistemic revision. The analysis examined language outcomes from 86 Chilean undergraduate university students from different Chilean universities (three public and three private) from Metropolitan and Coquimbo regions, enrolled in the social sciences, exact and natural sciences, and engineering programs. In this correlational non-experimental study, the students responded a semi-structured interview, which sought to examine how this ecological community behaves argumentatively. Findings reveal that textual data analysis helps to detect specific vocabulary for each type of response, it provides an in-context analysis of selected verbs, both on the intradiscursive and interdiscursive levels, and allows data to return to reality. This is due to the flexibility of the analysis responding to a complexity inherent in the units of study, integrating different types of quantitative data with textual data.

Concept of Evidence and the Quality of Evidence-Based Reasoning in Elementary Students

The present study has two goals: to explore elementary students’ understanding of evidence and the ways they deploy it to construct arguments, and to examine whether eliciting their concept of evidence during argumentation improves students’ evidence-based reasoning. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 4th and 6th graders (N = 66) in a public school in Mexico. We found significant differences between groups regarding the concept of evidence, with better performance in the older group. A positive correlation between the concept of evidence and the quality of evidence-based reasoning was found. Also, three performance profiles were observed after eliciting the concept of evidence when grade was excluded as a factor. Results suggest that the concept of evidence plays an essential role in developing argumentative competence in pre-adolescence.

Argumentative Competence in Friend and Stranger Dyadic Exchanges

This manuscript investigates the role of argumentative competence in interpersonal dyadic exchanges. Specifically, this study examined the two sub-dimensions of competence, argumentative effectiveness and appropriateness, and their connections with argumentative traits, situational features, and argument satisfaction. In addition, self-perceived versus observed argumentative competence were compared. Participants in the study (N = 282, 141 dyads) completed measures before and after a face-to-face argumentative discussion with another person about one of two possible topics (student athlete pay and texting while driving). Results revealed that argumentation traits had little effect on argumentative competence, but competence was predicted by one’s knowledge about the topic. Argument satisfaction depended only on arguers’ own competence, not their partners’. Finally, a perceptual bias existed regarding argument effectiveness (but not appropriateness) in that participants rated themselves higher than did observers.