Argumentative Discussions Research Articles

Psychosocial Obstacles in Young Children Argumentative Interactions

Argumentation is an important aspect in the field of education because of its impact on learning processes. At the same time, argumentation is a complex activity in terms of cognitive, relational, emotional and social dynamics. In this paper, I investigate and I describe possible difficulties encountered by children during the argumentative process. The study involves 25 preschool children at a kindergarten engaged in three building tasks. The tasks were video-recorded and the argumentative discussions transcribed. For the aim of this paper, I analyze how argumentation are distributed among participants. I select interactions in which participants apparently do not argue or there are differences in the degree of argumentative participation between participants of the same group. I analyze these interactions and moments of impasse in the argumentative steps. The findings show how the simplicity of solving the task (e.g., when children do not encounter any problem in completing the activity) and the children’s self-perception of their competences in solving the task may have an impact on argumentation activities. Moreover, this perception is co-constructed by children within the interaction. The study contributes to the line of research on designing argumentation and highlights the role of the adult in managing children’s interactions.

Co-construction of argumentative discussions between parents and children during mealtime conversations. A pragma-dialectical analysis

This study seeks to examine how both parents and children contribute interactionally to the dialogic process of negotiating their divergent opinions during mealtime conversations. Within a data corpus comprising 30 video-recorded meals of 10 Swiss and Italian families, 132 argumentative discussions were selected for qualitative analysis by adopting the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion. Despite the differences in roles, age, and competencies between parents and children—which help explain both the higher number of different arguments used by parents and the fact that the most frequent type of conclusion was when the child accepted the parent's standpoint—the findings of the pragma-dialectical analysis indicate that the process of negotiating the divergent opinions between parents and children is a co-constructed dialogic process wherein both parties play a fundamental role. By engaging in argumentative discussions, parents accept the commitment of clarifying to their children the reasons on which their standpoints are based. Children, in turn, encourage their parents to advance arguments to justify their standpoints by asking questions. Argumentative discussions in the family context should thus be viewed as a bidirectional dialogical process that opens a shared space for parents and children to think together. • Parents and children contribute to the negotiation of their divergent opinions. • Parents and children interactionally co-construct the dialogic process of negotiation. • Parents accept the commitment of clarifying the reasons their directives are based on. • Children encourage their parents to advance arguments to justify their standpoints. • Argumentation is a bidirectional dialogical process that opens a shared space to think together.

Behaviorally harmonized ethical discussions for socially responsible decision making: A counter-argumentative team approach

Decision making with cross-cultural diversity is a real challenge as well as an opportunity in the world of business and management. Interaction of stakeholders from different countries and cultures is inevitable for successful business transactions. This paper focuses to compare argumentative discussions with behavioral harmonized team synergy for socially responsible decision making (SRDM) in multicultural settings. It is organized around cross-level theoretical and practical teamwork analysis for accelerating cross-cultural collective mind benefits, ruling-out the destructive factors of cultural distance yielding socially responsible decisions. Specifically, on the basis of a theoretical framework and in-depth analysis of inducing and inhibiting factors of mind sourcing methods of brainstorming, crowd-sourcing, and team meeting, this research yields a feature-rich generic technique, which endeavors holistic approach to mind sourcing and cross-cultural logics. The study proposes a conceptual framework for a future multi-dimensional empirical testing and a practical technique, anticipated to help multinational organizations and international entrepreneurs to execute group work productively for facilitation of behaviorally harmonized ethical discussion (BHED), synergy, and ultimately designing corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs with SRDM by the cross-cultural teams. The proposed model integrates individual culture-based features and group-level processes under a common umbrella of BHED and SRDM.

Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability

In light of the ongoing public controversy surrounding fashion sustainability, this paper sets out to identify misalignments that relate to the definitions of sustainable fashion. It does so by examining the discourse of different agents in this polylogical argumentation - fashion companies and the European Parliament as well as citizens, small brands and NGOs - as revealed through documents and tweets published online. Our findings show misalignments in the opening stage of the argumentative discussion at the level of explicit and implicit definitions of sustainability as well as in how the agents responsible are discursively portrayed. We argue that the existence of these misalignments may explain the ongoing controversy surrounding sustainable fashion: the different actors do not share univocal starting points and representations of this phenomenon. Methodologically, this paper also advances research on argumentative polylogues, by demonstrating a method for comparing argumentation by different actors using different data sources.

ANALYZING CULTURAL AMBIVALENT IDENTITIES AND TRANSITIONAL PHASES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF IMPERIALISM PRESENTED IN ANITA DESAI’S VOICES IN THE CITY

Purpose of the study: This research explores Anita Desai’s Voices in the City from the cultural ambivalence and cultural imperialism aspects. Anita Desai’s Voices in the City (1964) is about the story of an archetypal Indian protagonist Nirode and his family.
 Methodology: This research is qualitative. Theories presented by Homi K. Bhabha and K. R. Lyenger support this research study as a major theoretical framework. This research is based on textual analysis.It discusses the issues of the remains of colonization and the impact of British imperialism during the transitional phase of the socio-cultural and socio-political situation of Indian society that reflects the ambivalent identity of the protagonist and other characters as well.
 Main Findings: Nirode is a colonial subject who distinctly observes the city of Calcutta and tends to escape from such cultural tendencies of modern Indian cultures and British cultures which causes his identity ambivalent. Nirode’s position as a victim and resistant to both cultures, his subject is determined amidst the socio-cultural, socio-economic, and socio-political power relations played by both British and Indian institutional cultural values and practices of the transitional phase of Indian society that creates ambivalent identity in the life of the protagonist and other characters which happens around the city of Calcutta.
 Applications of the study: The research is a contribution to the existing theories on one hand and an explanation and impact of the cultural ambivalence and cultural imperialism on Indian literature and society as depicted in the novel.
 Novelty/Originality of the study: This research is novel as it investigates socio-cultural, socio-economic, and socio-political power relations played by both British and Indian institutional cultural values and practices of the transitional phase of Indian society that creates ambivalent identity in the life of the protagonist and other characters which happens around the city of Calcutta. The theoretical framework is taken from two different theories in order to draw more argumentative discussion.

Adam Karalama Safsatasına Verilen Yanıtların Sav Modelleri: Facebook Haber Yorumlarından Örnekler

News-commenting in social media is a platform that offers an opportunity for online deliberation through argumentative discussion. Yet aggressive exchanges between commenters with clashing ideologies have become a prominent feature of online news-commenting. One example of the aggressive exchanges is the use of direct personal attacks among news-commenters, namely abusive ad hominem. In this paper, I aim to reveal the patterns of responses given to abusive ad hominem attacks by studying the comments to news items in Facebook. The reason is to shed light on how the discussion evolves after the ad hominem attack. The patterns that this paper illustrates are a summary of studying the responses to 20 ad hominem attacks that figure in the comments to news items topicalizing various social problems in Turkey. The examples were drawn from those that topicalise ‘violence against women in Turkey’. Three patterns were identified: (1) abusive ad hominem as a response to an abusive ad hominem attack; (2) refusing to carry on the discussion; and (3) critically evaluating the abusive ad hominem attack. These patterns show that the pragma-dialectical definition of the ad hominem fallacy proves to be functional in understanding its role in blocking the way to the resolution.

What is the task about? Exploring the issues discussed by preschool children in engineering activities at kindergarten

Problem solving tasks are one of the topics of investigation within the field of STEM and educational engineering involving children. However, young children have received much more little attention. Accordingly, this paper explores the issues discussed by preschool children during engineering activities. We focus on the issues participants discuss during three building problem solving proposed to preschool children at a kindergarten. The activities were audio-video recorded and the argumentative discussions were identified and transcribed. The argumentative analysis focused on different elements, such as the issuesoccurring in each argumentative episode, the standpoints, the arguments, and the argumentative structure. In particular, to explore the issues and their role in problem solving activities, three illustrative cases are presented. The findings show, from an argumentative perspective, a variety of issues explored by children in solving problems around building tasks. The task presented by the adult as a building activity represents something more for the participant children: for example, the children focus on the technical components to overcome possible obstacles, they refer to the collaboration with peers, to the possession of objects or to the utility of the working activities. As preschool children’s engineering work appears as a complex activity, the present study highlights the value of analyzing the issues that are discussed by preschool children during building activities.

Argumentation within Upper Secondary School Student Groups during Virtual Science Learning: Quality and Quantity of Spoken Argumentation

In many studies, the focus has been on students’ written scientific argumentation rather than on their spoken argumentation. The main aim of this study was to relate the quality of spoken argumentation to groups’ learning achievement during a collaborative inquiry task. The data included video recordings of six groups of three upper secondary students performing a collaborative inquiry task in a virtual learning environment. The target groups were selected from a larger sample of 39 groups based on their group outcome: two low, two average, and two high-outcome groups. The analysis focused on argumentation chains during the students’ discussions in the planning, experimentation, and conclusion phases of the inquiry task. The core of the coding scheme was based on Toulmin’s levels of argumentation. The results revealed differences between the different groups of students, with the high-performing groups having more argumentation than the average and low-performing groups. In high-performing groups, the students asked topic-related questions more frequently, which started the argumentative discussion. Meanwhile, there were few questions in the low-performing groups, and most did not lead to discussion. An evaluation scheme for the quality of the arguments was created and the spoken argumentation was analyzed using a computer-based program. The results may be used to benefit subject teacher education and to raise teachers’ awareness of their students’ scientific, topic-related discussions.

The relevance of metaphor in argumentation. Uniting pragma-dialectics and deliberate metaphor theory

Argumentative discussions can contain various types of metaphor, but these do not all fulfil the same function in discourse: while some seem to express part of the argumentation, others seem to be irrelevant. So far, argumentation research has not explained when metaphors should be considered relevant for argumentation. In this paper, insights from deliberate metaphor theory are combined with the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Based on this framework, it can be explained that various forms of metaphor exist that have various communicative functions. Deliberate metaphors are metaphors intended to change the perspective of the interlocutor and thus may play a relevant role in a discussion. Non-deliberate metaphors have no such function. Using the concept of analytic relevance, the analyst can distinguish between relevant and irrelevant metaphors: If metaphors are used as a means to change someone's perspective on the issue at hand, they are relevant moves in light of the aim to solve a difference of opinion, whether they positively contribute to that aim or not.

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Investigate Preschool children\u2019s Implicit Inferential Reasoning in Scientific Activities

The implementation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) at school is one of the challenges of education in the twenty-first century, especially concerning the development of critical thinking during argumentative interactions. In this paper, I refer to an interdisciplinary approach with the aim to analyze the implicit inferential reasoning emerging in argumentative discussions among children during scientific activities. The study involved 25 preschool children at a kindergarten engaged in three problem solving tasks. The first activity was to build a tunnel, the second to build a bridge—both with the use of Lego©—and the third to build an hourglass with recycled materials. The tasks were video-recorded and the discussions transcribed. The analysis implied different steps: first, I identified the argumentative structure of each exchange according to the pragma-dialectical approach; then, I found the implicit premises using the Argumentum Model of Topics; afterward, I analyzed the argumentative discussions according to a sociocultural approach. The findings show a predominance of arguments based on causal relationships and indicate how children reason regarding complex aspects of a problem, such as the negative consequences of an action, the adequacy of the available tools, and the (possible) future conditions connected to the scientific activity they are involved in. The study opens a possibility to shift from how to implement STEM activities to what children already do when engaged in scientific tasks. It also encourages the adoption of an interdisciplinary approach to investigating the complex process of argumentation in preschool children.

THE ARGUMENT STYLE OF RESEARCH ARTICLE DISCUSSIONS BY NON-NATIVE AUTHORS OF ENGLISH PUBLISHED IN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS

The argument quality in the discussion section of research articles determines the quality of the article but authors often find it very difficult to write especially when writing it in a foreign language. This study is aimed at investigating how Indonesian authors in multi- disciplines as non-native speakers of English discuss their research results in their English RAs. Fifty English RAs written by Indonesian authors in multi-disciplines published in Indonesian-based journals were analysed on the ways the authors discuss their research results and justify their new knowledge claims. The results show that, like international authors, Indonesian authors in multi-disciplines consider statement of results (Move-2), reference to previous research (Move-4), explanation (Move-5), and exemplification (Move-6) conventional or obligatory. They also consider explanation of the findings (Strategy-2), illustrating or exemplifying the findings (Strategy-4), and relating the findings with those in previous studies obligatory or conventional. The implication of these findings is for teaching Indonesian young faculty members and postgraduate students in writing convincingly argumentative discussion sections when writing RAs in English for international journal publication by including necessary moves and strategies.

Utilizando a História e a Filosofia da Ciência para contextualizar uma aula de Química do Ensino Médio em uma escola pública do Município de Uruguaiana-RS

Este artigo apresenta o relato de experiência em uma aula de química do 3º ano do Ensino Médio, regida por bolsista residente do Programa de Residência Pedagógica (PRP), numa escola pública, situada na periferia da cidade de Uruguaiana – RS. O planejamento dela consiste na problematização inicial com livro didático em sala de aula, recurso disponível em todas as escolas, e foi baseado no 1º Momento Pedagógico (1MP) dos 3MP, metodologia proposta por Delizoicov, Angotti e Pernambuco (2018). O 1MP consiste em verificar os conhecimentos prévios que os alunos possuem sobre o assunto que será trabalhado, para que os conhecimentos já consolidados possam servir de âncora aos conhecimentos que serão construídos, favorecendo a alfabetização científica. O objetivo desse trabalho foi desenvolver a contextualização do conteúdo de química orgânica com a utilização do texto “Anestésicos” (Fonseca, 2016), através da dinâmica da leitura amiga durante o 1MP e abordando a História e Filosofia da Ciência (HFC). A proposta iniciou com a leitura do texto, após a leitura de cada frase do texto por um aluno diferente, era realizada uma discussão argumentativa onde os alunos participaram ativamente expondo seus conhecimentos prévios, relacionando a importância da química nos medicamentos e relacionando ao seu cotidiano. Através das falas dos alunos conclui-se a importância do 1MP e da HFC na contextualização do conteúdo para motivar os alunos em seu processo de ensino-aprendizagem.

Rater Negotiation Scheme: How writing raters resolve score discrepancies

Abstract In practices of direct assessment of writing ability, the variability of human decision-making during scoring poses great challenges to the validity of assessment (Kane, 2006). The variables causing differences in individual raters’ scoring interpretations have been widely investigated (e.g. Eckes, 2012; Wolfe et al., 2016). However, the issue of how raters negotiate to resolve discrepancies has not received attention although rater negotiation is a widely used score resolution method. As it has been emphasized by scholars interested in the argumentative behavior of raters (e.g. Trace et al., 2017), a systematic analysis of score negotiations will enable us to analyze the dependability of score negotiations. The purpose of this study is twofold: to present a thorough analysis of the argumentative structure of rater discrepancy resolution discussions with a view to understanding their underlying dynamics, and to investigate whether the elements of the argumentative structure of negotiations differ from research settings to authentic score resolution practices. In line with this aim, rater negotiations following a written test at the language school of an English-medium university were analyzed within the framework of Argumentation Theory by Toulmin (1958) and Walton (2005, 2016). The negotiation data were obtained from 99 recorded rater discussions among 30EFL teachers, and transcribed, coded and categorized into argumentative discussion moves. A Rater Negotiation Scheme (RNS) was developed through a recursive data analysis and categorization process, and it was validated through field-testing in authentic settings. The findings have implications both for research on rater negotiations and arguments on the reliability of the method.

The Role of Social Media as a Means of Political Literacy of Millennials in the 2019 Presidential Elections Process (A Case Study in Garut Regency)

This study discusses the problem of political literacy through social media in the 2019 presidential election in Garut regency, literacy is a very important process in supporting public political education, especially in the process that adapts to the current proliferation of digital media, the number of hoaxes and framing in social media is clear evidence of the loss of the essence of the democratic process itself, the author’s goals is to see the extent of the influence of social media on political literacy in determining the presidential election of 2019 in Garut district, and how the contribution and participation of millennial in its implementation, the result of this study are that social media influences the process of millennial generation political literacy, whereby they can judge information about politics based on arguments that are relevant to the media they read both books, through seminar forums, discussions in organizations and media information that has presented valid data validity. The implication is, to create a critical competent and political literacy society with argumentative discussions.

The significance of the adversative connectives aber, mais, ma (‘but’) as indicators in young children’s argumentation

Abstract Adversative connectives have been analyzed as articulating explicit and implicit facets of argumentative moves and have been thus recognized as potential argumentative indicators. Here we examine adversative connectives Ger. aber, Fr. mais, It. ma (‘but’) in young children’s speech in the context of the ArgImp project, a research endeavor seeking to understand in which situations children aged between two and six years engage in argumentation and how their contributions are structured. Two multilingual corpora have been collected for the project: (1) everyday family conversations, (2) semi-structured play activities and problem solving in a kindergarten setting. Through the detailed analysis of a small collection of examples, we consider the indicative potential of adversative connectives for identifying argumentative episodes in interactions involving young children and for the reconstruction of the inferential configurations of children’s contributions to these argumentative discussions. The results show that fully fledged argumentative interpretations of adversatives occur as a possibility in children’s speech, and that adversative connectives can be used profitably to identify less apparent argumentative confrontations and implicit standpoints in children’s speech.

Positionierungen in argumentativen Gesprächen und Briefen der Schule

Abstract The current research in the field of argumentation in school contexts predominantly focuses on the development of oral and written argumentation skills and interventions to improve students’ argumentative skills, while comparative studies of argumentative practices in different modes, particularly the linguistic features of oral versus written argumentative practices, are still rare. To close this gap, our study investigates argumentative oral and written practices of students in secondary school to answer the question whether the mode has an influence on the use of specific procedures and linguistic features. We examined how students express their stance on a controversial issue linguistically (Positionierung) by analyzing a small corpus of argumentative discussions and letters by 12th grade students. The results of the study show that while students use similar procedures and linguistic features in both modes, they are more varied and multifaceted in discussions, i. e. oral communication, than in letters, i. e. written communication.

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.

An instrument for analysing students’ argumentative reasoning when participating in debates

ABSTRACTThe aims of this paper are twofold. First, we present, justify, and characterise an instrument for analysing students’ argumentative reasoning developed from Walton’s ideas. Then, from the analysis of students’ argumentative discussion about a socio-scientific controversy, we identify the advantages and disadvantages of using the instrument. The results show that the analysis of students’ argumentative reasoning require nine stages, which have logical and pragmatic criteria that should be used in order to decrease the subjectivity of the analysis. The analysis sheds light on the characterisation of students’ argumentative reasoning by supporting the understanding of the move of students’ argumentative clusters, since it enables us to understand that: the argumentative quality depends on the relations between arguments and other statements; and an argumentative cluster can be developed according to the frequency of refutations or attacks by means of questions involving its constituents. This is because when arguments, questions, and/or claims are evaluated, the individuals have the possibility of bringing other reasons and/or arguments that support them in the discussion. Therefore, the main contribution of this study is the development of an instrument, based on dialectical principles, that contributes to analyse students’ argumentative discuss and to support discussions of their argumentative quality.

Conflicts and solidarities of the LGBTQ scene in St Petersburg

Modern Russia shows increased problematization of LGBTQ communities and non-conventional gender identities in media and their almost complete exclusion from public space. However, the present study reveals that LGBTQ activists are solidarizing faced with symbolic, psychological and physical violence and pressure by the state, social institutions and the homophobic population. The empirical basis of the study is 14 interviews involving LGBTQ people and the overt observation. The scene approach highlights not only actors and practices within the scene but also the space where interactions take place. The author concludes that the St Petersburg LGBTQ scene represents heterogeneous community of organizations, initiatives, venues targeted at different groups of individuals with non-conventional sexual and gender identities. The LGBTQ scene is more likely to be seen as a reflexive, argumentative discussion of the most important community issues related to gender status, public actions, authorities, hierarchy and sexual and gender identities.
 Acknowledgment. The paper is part of the project “Promoting the youth participation and social inclusion: analysis of innovative youth activism in Europe and Russia” implemented within the NRU HSE 2018 Fundamental Research Program.

QUADRO ANALÍTICO PARA DISCUSSÕES ARGUMENTATIVAS EM FÓRUNS ON-LINE: APLICAÇÃO NO ENSINO DE QUÍMICA

Pesquisas realizadas com o intuito de investigar a construção de argumentos mostram que os estudantes fazem mais progressos quando argumentam em torno de um determinado tópico de forma colaborativa. Essa constatação resultou, nas últimas duas décadas, em um corpo significativo de trabalhos que visam o desenvolvimento de ações com o propósito de promover a argumentação em ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem por parte dos estudantes de ciências. Nesse cenário, surge a necessidade de ferramentas analíticas que permitam a classificação e análise de mensagens submetidas em discussões argumentativas em fóruns on-line. O presente artigo tem como objetivo apresentar as concepções teóricas que subsidiaram a elaboração de um Quadro Analítico para análise de discussões dessa natureza, assim como descrever a sua aplicação no contexto do ensino de química, a partir da resolução de estudos de caso de caráter sociocientífico por graduandos. O Quadro Analítico possibilitou a síntese de informações capazes de subsidiar a tessitura de considerações acerca do nível de produção argumentativa, nível de complexidade argumentativa e nível de qualidade conceitual de discussões argumentativas em fóruns on-line.