Toulmin's Model Of Argumentation Research Articles

Analysis of organic chemistry students’ developing reasoning elicited by a scaffolded case comparison activity

Recent efforts in organic chemistry education research focus on investigating activities and strategies designed to elicit students’ mechanistic reasoning. This study investigates how a scaffolded case comparison activity implemented in an introductory organic chemistry course elicits and supports students’ mechanistic reasoning in an authentic classroom setting. The activity included an adaptation of a previously reported reasoning scaffold to support small-group student discussions comparing organic reactions. We analyzed students’ written responses to the in-class activity using Hammer's resources framework and Toulmin's argumentation model, interwoven to create an anti-deficit approach to exploring students’ developing reasoning. The analysis of students’ written artifacts sought to identify ways in which a scaffolded case comparison implemented in a collaborative class setting may support students’ engagement in complex reasoning and argumentation development. We found that the in-class activity elicited students’ writing about various aspects of mechanistic reasoning, including identifying explicit and implicit properties, dynamic reasoning, and multivariate reasoning. These findings indicate that the activity can engage students in complex mechanistic reasoning aspects in the classroom setting. Furthermore, this study extends the literature by detailing the nuances of students’ developing causal reasoning with energetic and electrostatic accounts as shown in their writing. The results highlight students’ emerging causal reasoning with varying levels of complexity and conceptual integration. This study provides direct implications for instructors seeking to implement similar classroom activities. The findings indicate directions for future research on the development of instructional activities and tools that further support students’ developing causal reasoning, such as adapting existing scaffolding structures to support argumentation development and the integration of challenging concepts such as energetics.

Whole-to-Part Argumentation Instruction: An Action Research Study Aimed at Improving Chinese College Students’ English Argumentative Writing Based on the Toulmin Model

In recent years, the challenges and lack of progress in writing argumentative essays in English have posed a pedagogical challenge for Chinese university students. To address this issue, this paper adopts an action research pedagogy and implements a 10-week intervention aimed at teaching argumentative writing based on the Toulmin model of argumentation. The instructional process followed a holistic-to-specific approach, encompassing the following three stages: (1) introduction of the general model, (2) instruction on the main dimensions of argumentative elements, and (3) teaching of the subdimension of argumentative elements. Data collection for this study included teacher-teaching diaries, students’ interviews, and four writing scores. Both paired-sample t-tests and repeated measures analyses were conducted, revealing significant improvements in students’ overall performance and the quality of argumentative elements across the different stages. This paper provides a comprehensive discussion on the impact of this whole-to-detail approach to teaching argumentation on the development of argumentative essay writing skills.

Toulmin Argument Model and Its Application in College English Learning

Toulmin argumentation model consists of six elements, including proposition, basis, justifications, support, qualifiers, and refusal. Basic principles of Toulmin's argumentative logic thought are rationality, preserving reasoning, domain principle, principle of practicality. Toulmin's argumentation model can be learned and used by students when learning College English to improve their critical thinking ability.

Students' Arguments in Solving Probability Theory Problems Based on The Toulmin Argumentation Model

Students' Arguments in Solving Probability Theory Problems Based on The Toulmin Argumentation Model

Using Toulmin's Argumentation Model to Enhance Trust in Analytics-Based Advice Giving Systems

Ecommerce websites increasingly provide predictive analytics-based advice (PAA) , such as advice about future potential price reductions. Establishing consumer-trust in these advice-giving systems imposes unique and novel challenges. First, PAA about future alternatives that can benefit the consumer appears to inherently contradict the business goal of selling a product quickly and at high profit margins. Second, PAA is based on mathematical models that are non-transparent to the user. Third, PAA advice is inherently uncertain, and can be perceived as subjectively imposed in algorithms. Utilizing Toulmin's argumentation-model, we investigate the influence of advice-justification statements in overcoming these difficulties. Based on three experimental studies, in which respondents are provided with the advice of PAA systems, we show evidence for the different roles Toulmin's statement-types play in enhancing various trusting-beliefs in PAA systems. Provision of warrants is mostly associated with enhanced competence beliefs; rebuttals with integrity beliefs; backings both competence and benevolence; and data statements enhance competence, integrity, and benevolence beliefs. Implications of the findings for research and practice are provided.

The argumentative salience of technology frames of reference: An analysis of argumentative discourse in the development of a health information exchange initiative

This study examines the impact that the argumentative salience of technology frames of references has on the execution of complex IS implementation projects. It employs Toulmin's argument model to develop argument maps that depict the structure of argumentation that took place during the development and implementation of an interorganizational health information exchange initiative (HIE) that took place in southeast USA. Toulmin's argument model faciliated the portrayal of frame salience in terms of three structural properties (i.e., blindness, indifference, and ownership). The study used these properties to show how the breadth, depth and conspicuity of frame structures changed during the course of the project and demonstrated how these changes impacted both the level of contestation observed in the project as well as project outcomes. In addition to lending insights that are specific to this case, our conceptualization of frame structure lends itself to cross-case comparisons and future theory building as the impact of these argument structures can be evaluated in a multitude of different contexts.

Türkiye’de Matematik Eğitimi Alanında Toulmin Argümantasyon Modeli’nin Kullanıldığı Lisansüstü Tezlerin İncelenmesi

The aim of this study is to examine the theses published in the field of mathematics education in Turkey in which Toulmin Argumentation Model was used. It has been analyzed how the prepared theses were distributed in terms of publication year-type, publication language, institute, university, keywords, aims and target audience. In this study conducted by document analysis method, 23 theses in the field of mathematics education, covering a total of 12 years until the end of 2022 without considering any start date, from the theses open to access in the National Thesis Center database of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) were analyzed. The obtained studies were subjected to descriptive analysis and the analyzed data were presented in tables with frequency and percentage values. Within the scope of the research, some basic results were reached such as; argumentation studies using Toulmin Model in mathematics education have been studied more intensively from the past to the present, Turkish studies are conducted more frequently than English studies in terms of publication language, studies conducted at the doctoral level at the level of institutes are more or equal to the studies conducted at the master's level, university students and secondary school students are preferred more intensively in the selection of the target audience. This study aims to guide the studies that center on the Toulmin Argumentation Model in mathematics education. In addition, it is thought to contribute to the researchers to see the concentration or deficiencies in the field and to encourage the filling of the gap in the field by conducting applications with different study groups rather than working with the same study groups.

An Analysis of Science Teachers’ Views on Argumentation-Based Science Learning and the Activities they have Prepared

This study is an attempt to examine science teachers’ views on Argumentation-Based Science Learning (ABSL) and the activities they have prepared. The study employed a qualitative case study method. The working group consisted of 5 science teachers who work in secondary schools affiliated with the Ministry of National Education in Turkey and who have master’s degree. This study deployed the “Semi-structured Preliminary Interview Form”, “The Evaluation Rubric related to the Activities Based on Argumentation-Based Science Learning “ and “Semi-structured Final Interview Form”. Content analysis and descriptive analysis were used during data analysis. The results revealed that the teachers’ perceptions towards ABSL before the implementation were mostly grounded on giving opinions and argumentation. Four teachers did not use ABSL in lessons before and they did not prepare any activities. On analyzing the activities prepared by the teachers through use of ABSL, all the teachers were identified to consider grade level, unit, subject area, learning outcome and associating them with daily life while preparing the activities. The teachers were also determined to use concept cartoons, competing theories with stories, and experiment design techniques in the activity papers. Besides, the Toulmin argumentation model steps were taken into consideration in the activity papers. Concerning the analysis of last interview data, teachers’ perceptions towards ABSL were found to be opinions, claims, opposing ideas and arguments. The teachers also indicated that they avoided creating misconceptions and that they took into account the student and grade levels in the ABSL activities. In addition, the teachers noted that preparing the activity is time-consuming and unsuitable for every subject. This study is paramount in terms of giving information to teachers and pre-service teachers related to the teachers’ views on ABSL and how they have prepared ABSL activities.

An empirical study on the scaffolding Chinese university students’ English argumentative writing based on toulmin model

In first language studies, the Toulmin model of argumentation has become a prominent analysis and assessment method for English argumentative essays. However, there hasn't been much study on using argument theory to scaffold teaching in practice in second language classrooms. As a broad group of English learners, Chinese university students face numerous challenges when writing argumentative essays in English. As a result, in order to broaden the writing pathway for second language learners, this study employs the Toulmin argumentation model as a pedagogical scaffold. The effects of the argumentation model as a pedagogical scaffold on students' argumentative essay writing were examined on the pre-test and post-test results from both experimental and control groups. Overall scores and argumentative elements in terms of quantity, type, and quality were examined respectively. The mixed-effects model revealed that introducing the Toulmin model of argumentation into the scaffolding method had a significant impact on most argumentative elements in students' writing. The practical pedagogical implications and effects of Toulmin argumentative model have been discussed in detail in this paper.

Exploring Chinese high school students' performance and perceptions of scientific argumentation by understanding it as a three‐component progression of competencies

AbstractArgumentation plays a significant role in science as a scientific practice in which knowledge is constructed, evaluated, and modified. Scientific argumentation (SA) is thus a promising activity for students to pursue in order to think and act like scientists and to enhance their understanding of science. Considering the impact that assessments usually have on teaching and their role in understanding students' ability, this study aims to explore the assessment of scientific argumentation competence (SAC) and Chinese high school students' performance and perceptions of SA. This study, therefore, proposes a three‐component framework for understanding SAC, including the competencies to identify, evaluate, and generate the SA elements outlined in Toulmin's argument model. Based on this framework, we hypothesize three levels of SAC and develop a test including 22 items to see whether these proposed SAC elements are valid and to what extent they represent students' levels of SAC. An iterative procedure is adopted to develop and validate the assessment instrument, validity evidence is collected from the analysis of teachers' interviews, students' think‐aloud and follow‐up interviews, and from confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis of students' scores on the test. The results suggest that the measure, which includes three SAC components has acceptable reliability and validity, and the three‐level progression of SAC is aligned with and further expands previous learning progressions of SA. We also find that most students in our sample are at level 1 of SAC and they in general hold positive attitudes toward learning through argumentation, but their willingness in engaging with SA tends to be affected by their perception of the intrinsic and practical value of SA and their personality. Providing them with explanations of SA elements does not improve their test performance.

Investigating students’ argumentation when judging the plausibility of alternative reaction pathways in organic chemistry

Building scientific arguments is a central ability for all scientists regardless of their specific domain. In organic chemistry, building arguments is a necessary skill to estimate reaction processes in consideration of the reactivities of reaction centres or the chemical and physical properties. Moreover, building arguments for multiple reaction pathways might help students overcome the tendency toward one-reason decision-making and offer them an authentic perspective on organic processes. Reasoning about multiple alternative organic reaction pathways requires students to build arguments and then judge and weigh the plausibility of these pathways. However, students often struggle to build strong arguments and use scientific principles appropriately to justify their claims. In the present study, the argumentation patterns of 29 chemistry majors students were analysed using a simplified version of Toulmin's argumentation model (claim–evidence–reasoning). The students solved various tasks related to alternative reaction pathways of a substitution reaction. They supported their claims with evidence and justified the evidence through reasoning. We investigated (a) the extent to which the students use evidence and reasoning in their argumentation (referred to as their argumentation approach), (b) how students with different argumentation approaches rationalised changes in their initial claims, and (c) how students used reasoning to justify their arguments. The results indicate that students need further support to appropriately use evidence and reasoning and to apply conceptual knowledge to build well-grounded arguments.

Warrants Generations using a Language Model and a Multi-Agent System

Each argument begins with a conclusion, which is followed by one or more premises supporting the conclusion. The warrant is a critical component of Toulmin's argument model; it explains why the premises support the claim. Despite its critical role in establishing the claim's veracity, it is frequently omitted or left implicit, leaving readers to infer. We consider the problem of producing more diverse and high-quality warrants in response to a claim and evidence. To begin, we employ BART [1] as a conditional sequence tosequence language model to guide the output generation process. On the ARCT dataset [2], we fine-tune the BART model. Second, we propose the Multi-Agent Network for Warrant Generation as a model for producing more diverse and high-quality warrants by combining Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) with the mechanism of mutual awareness of agents. In terms of warrant generation, our model generates a greater variety of warrants than other baseline models. The experimental results validate the effectiveness of our proposed hybrid model for generating warrants.

Selecting a method/tool for risk-based decision making in complex situations

After a risk assessment has been completed and feasible risk reduction measures have been reviewed, decisions must be made to select the most appropriate safeguards and/or a decision taken to determine as to what residual risk would be conditionally accepted. The straightforward way is to set up a binary decision tree and compare for each event scenario, the risk reduction gain versus cost of two or more acceptable alternatives. However, often many contributing factors must be considered, such as: the nature, importance, and context of the risk, availability of the measures, procurement and maintenance costs, the impact to personnel and particularly to the public near the hazardous area, vulnerability of the environment, determination and weighting of important contributing safety factors, and uncertainties inherent to the available information.In such more complex cases, the decision problem takes the form of building argumentation for a preferred solution with a team of experts, or making a choice from a number of options and selection criteria using the independent opinions of experts/stakeholders. The former is known as the Toulmin model of argumentation, the latter are Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods or Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. In the latter case, one criterion is weighted as more important than another by experts of which in turn opinion can be weighted based on, e.g., education and experience, together resulting in a ranking of the alternatives. Where the Toulmin model will squeeze out explicit rational arguments sharpened by rebuttal ones, in MCDM/MCDA methods due to the weighting and mathematical processing, the best compromise ranking of the options will result, despite experts’ opinions are intuitive. Well-known is the simple linear model of the Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP), but a number of more sophisticated methods will be briefly described in this document. In Multi- Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) utility is a guiding principle, hence economics dominate. A number of methods will be selected for working out an example and comparing results.

Rhetoric Situation of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Social Media and its Impact on Pedagogy

The current study aimed to explore the rhetoric situation of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in social media. In this study, the researcher uses the rhetoric situation theory of Bitzer and Toulmin model of argumentation as a theoretical framework. The secondary data were obtained from social media (i.e., Twitter and Facebook from 15th March 2020 to 31st March 2020). Therefore, all the data were based on the current issue of COVID-19. The qualitative approach is used in this study. The findings revealed rhetoric situation led to the construction of the rhetoric message produced in social media. The rhetoric message was the subject of conversation in social media regarding COVID-19, which is produced intentionally to persuade others. Social media is responsible for the rhetorical situation today. However, rhetoric of the current situation in the pandemic COVID-19 cannot be ignored, the role of rhetorical arguments in the digital era, or better known as the digital rhetoric.

The Examination of Argumentation Based Problem Solving Processes of 10th Grade Students

"Abstract: The aim of this study is to examine the argumentation-based problem solving processes of 10th grade students in the context of quadratic equations. The study was carried out in a public high school in Istanbul. The study group consists of three male students selected by the method of “homogeneous sampling”. In the research, special case study, one of the qualitative research models, was used. The data in the application process were collected with two problem-solving activities related to quadratic equations. The students tried to solve the problems together by doing group work with one week interval for both problems. The problem solving processes of the students were recorded with the video recorder and the discussions between the students were analyzed according to Toulmin's argumentation model. According to the findings of the research, it was determined that the students used the argument (65), least rebuttal (3) and qualitative (3) components among the argumentation components. Students produced less arguments in the first problem solutions than the second problem. For this reason, differences were observed in students' ability to produce arguments according to the qualifications of the questions. In addition, after the argumentation study, the students stated that the problem solving process contributed in the context of understanding the problem for themselves, expressing their thoughts, persuading their opinions by defending their ideas, and communicating together and they want to be found again in similar working environments."

The effects of in-class debates on argumentation skills in second language education

The skill of argumentation in the second language (L2) is problematic for secondary school students who are deficient in expressing structurally and qualitatively appropriate arguments. Debate has been widely acclaimed as an effective pedagogical tool that can improve L2 argumentation skills of students. However, the existing evidence is anecdotal. This intervention study, which employed a pretest-posttest control group design involving eight classes at three secondary schools in The Netherlands, was conducted to investigate to what extent debate instruction in L2 affects a number of L2 structural (e.g. sub-arguments and rebuttals) and quality (e.g. elaboration and persuasiveness of arguments) aspects of argumentation. To gauge the effect of the intervention, we analyzed written and oral opinion tasks produced by the participants at the beginning and towards the end of the intervention. We used an adjusted version of Toulmin's argumentation model to undertake the structural analysis and a 5-point scale rubric to assess different aspects of reasoning quality. Multilevel analysis of the data revealed that debate instruction had a positive effect upon a number of structural components and quality aspects of the written and oral argumentation skills. These findings led us to conclude that debate constitutes a conducive pedagogy for honing argumentation skills.

ARGUMENTATION PATTERNS OF TOULMIN STUDENTS DURING ONLINE LECTURES IN THE PANDEMIC

Student argumentation skills are considered weak during online lectures. The Toulmin Argumentation Model is an excellent model in analyzing argumentation discourse in the Science Classroom. This study aims to describe Toulmin's argumentation patterns during online lectures during the Covid-19 Pandemic. The research method used is a qualitative descriptive method. Data collection techniques used in the form of an open questionnaire. Respondents used in this study were 50 samples. The results showed that the argumentation pattern was divided into 2 categories namely, (1) Category Four Elements and (2) Category Five Elements. The Four Elements category is divided into 2 patterns, namely the C-G-W-B Pattern and the G-C-M-W Pattern. In the CGWB Pattern, the argumentation elements used are a claim (position statement), ground (data or facts), warrant (guarantee), and backing (support), while in the GCMW Pattern the argumentation elements used are ground (data or facts), claim (position statement), Capital Qualifier, and warrant. The Five Elements category forms the G-C-W-B-Pc Pattern. In the G-C-W-B-Pc Pattern, the argumentation elements used are grounds (data or facts), claims (position statements), warrant (s), backing (support), and possible rebuttal (exceptions). In the case of the five-element category, the argumentation pattern does not use a Capital qualifier

Improving 7th Grade Students’ Epistemological Beliefs by Epistemologically Enriched Argumentation Model

This study aims the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Toulmin argumentation model (TAM), epistemologically enriched Toulmin argumentation model (EETAM), and method suggested in Turkish Science Curricula on the epistemological beliefs of 7th grade students and their views on this effect. In this context, while the students in TAM group learned seventh grade structure and properties of matter unit through TAM; the students in EETAM group learned seventh grade structure and properties of matter unit through TAM and then had explicit discussions about epistemological belief dimensions. In the comparison group, students fallowed national science curriculum and learned the same science topic through the method suggested in curriculum. Students’ epistemological beliefs were determined with epistemological belief scale. Also, students’ opinions about the effect of TAM and EETAM were determined by semi-structured interviews. Therefore, embedded design of mixed method researches was used. Two experimental and one comparison groups were included. The sample of the study consisted of 98 students studying in a public school in Kayseri, Turkey. As a result of the study, there was a significant difference only between the EEAM group and the comparison group in terms of epistemological beliefs. The same results were reached in the qualitative findings. Therefore, it can be said that explicit discussions on epistemological beliefs is more effective than inquiry-based teaching and method suggested in Turkish national science curriculum. Thus, results expose that explicit teaching of epistemological beliefs helps students better understand epistemic nature of scientific knowledge and learning.

Teaching Argumentative Writing to ESOL Students.

Teaching argumentative writing to English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) learners is one of the skills required for successful academic writing. Theoretically-grounded in the Toulmin argumentation model, this paper seeks to explicate the tenets of teaching adult ESOL learners' argumentative composition skills. It also accounts for the assessment strategies that support learners' transfer from their internalized linguistic systems to writing neat, well-supported arguments in the target language. In pursuit of this endeavor, model lesson plans are provided for teachers to test. Though this research is based on personal experience in the Algerian ESOL context, the unit plan can be generalized in other contexts to ESOL learners. Multilingual learners are becoming an inevitable part of mainstream American composition classes, which justifies the suitability of this unit design in the American context.

A study on the effectiveness of a teaching based on socio-scientific issues in the training of pre-service teachers

In this study, two different learning approaches (the Toulmin model of argumentation and whole class discussion technique) to the training of primary school teachers in Turkey were tested over socio-scientific issues. On the one hand, we identified how prospective teachers experienced a change of mind on these issues before and after the training, and on the other hand, we analysed the changes on their argumentation and attitudes. In this research model, the distribution of participants is in 53 experimental groups and 52 control groups, and the group equivalence transactions are done. The study was used three different measurement tools, such as attitudes towards socio-scientific Issues Scale, argumentation test and the Teacher Efficacy Scale. The study included teaching processes based on socio-scientific issues (SSI) for 5 weeks each. Furthermore, the indecisiveness participants displayed in socio-scientific issues completely disappeared in the teaching group following the Toulmin model, and each member of this group made a definite decision on the issues covered.
 Keywords: Socio-scientific issues, teacher candidates, argumentation model.