Toulmin's Argument Research Articles

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.

Science Literacy Support for Improving Students Argumentation Skills

This study explores the impact of science literacy on improving students' argumentation skills at SMA Negeri 21 Surabaya during the 2023/2024 academic year, within the context of the "Merdeka Belajar" initiative and 21st-century competencies. This quantitative correlational research involved 60 students from classes XI-2 and XI-10, selected using purposive sampling techniques. Based on Toulmin's argument model and the PISA science literacy framework, data was collected through science literacy tests and argumentation skill assessments. Data analysis using Minitab 18 revealed a significant positive correlation between science literacy and argumentation skills, with p < 0.05 and correlation coefficients of 0.710 for class XI-2 and 0.926 for class XI-10. These findings support the hypothesis that enhancing science literacy can improve students' argumentation skills. This study highlights the importance of integrating argumentation skills into science education to enhance science literacy and recommends developing a curriculum that supports argumentation practices to improve students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

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.

How do I know this Law corpus is reliable and valid? Using a representativeness argument for corpus validation

Corpus findings are only useful if the corpus adequately represents the content and language of the target domain; yet few studies evaluate or report representativeness. This paper argues that corpus linguists should focus explicitly on the validation process. It introduces the innovative concept of a Representativeness Argument, which is an explicit statement of reliability and validity to enable defensible applications of a corpus for a specifically defined purpose and audience. Adapted from Toulmin's (1958/2003) argument model, its originality lies in its attention to both target domain and linguistic representativeness, and in the critical role played by expert judgements. To illustrate this approach, I present a representativeness argument for the 1.98-million-word ‘DSVC-IL’ corpus, which was compiled to investigate the discipline-specific vocabulary required for reading postgraduate International Law texts. The corpus is demonstrated to adequately represent target domain content, established by analysing modules and reading lists, and confirmed by experts. The language is shown to adequately reflect the domain through analysis of a 1026-flemma Single Word List, extracted using measures of frequency, keyness, range and evenness of distribution. List items are evenly-distributed in randomly-split corpus halves (rs=.98, p<.00). The list provides similar coverage of the DSVC-IL (26.37%) and other texts from the domain (23.87%). Moreover, Law experts confirmed the majority of list items were Law words. Together, the evidence supports the usefulness of the corpus and list for its explicitly defined purpose.

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

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

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

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

Analisis kemampuan argumentasi matematis siswa pada materi bangun ruang sisi datar ditinjau dari kemampuan awal matematika

The aim of the research is to determine the level of students' argumentation ability to solve surface area and volume problems based on students' initial mathematical abilities. This research focused to discover new things that students do in solving problems based on the level of Toulmin argumentation ability. The methodology for taking subjects in this research was purposive, namely by categories of students with high, medium and low abilities, looking at the students' report cards. Students with a high level of initial argumentation can state claims, evidence and reasoning well but are less able to provide rebuttals. Students with a medium initial level of argumentation are only able to state claims and data well. Meanwhile, students with a low level of initial argumentation always make wrong claims and are not able to show evidence, reasoning and rebuttal to support their claims. High entry level students' argumentation abilities are at level 2 except for the rebuttal component, the rebuttal component is at level 0 where students tend to be unable to make counterclaims and unable to reject false statements. Students' argumentation abilities are not all students' initial argumentation abilities are at level 1, where students' ability to make claims and evidence is at level 2 while the ability to make rebuttals is at level 0. Students' initial argumentation abilities are low at level 0 where students are not able make claims, evidence, reasoning, and rebuttal well.

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.

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.

Profile of The First Year Student’s Argumentation Skills on General Chemistry Courses at a Public University in West Sumatera: A Preliminary Study

Scientific argumentation is one of the key components of habits of mind, while habits of mind are one dimension of scientific literacy that should be developed in Indonesia. However, the student’s scientific argumentation ability in learning, which has been weak lately, has become a common problem that needs to be solved immediately. The solution can be related to how to evaluate the learning process, construct the problems found in learning, and design learning that can motivate students to argue. This is a descriptive study. It aimed to find out the profile of the early scientific argumentation skills of first-year students who took general chemistry courses at one of the public colleges in West Sumatra. Research instruments consist of four open and semi-closed essay questions. Those were given to 125 chemical education students involved in this study. Data was analyzed by evaluating the students’ written argumentation, which became the research samples by following the Toulmin Argumentation Pattern (TAP), consisting of claim, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal. The study results show that most students (97.25%) have level 0–3 argumentations skills. While only 2.25% of students have level 4 argumentation skills and 0.5% are at level 5. This means that the early argumentation skills of chemistry students are still low, and only a few students are able to emerge with a rebuttal in the scientific arguments they build. These findings are further used as the basis for designing learning strategies that can improve students’ argumentation skills during the learning process, especially in general chemistry courses, so that their habits of mind and scientific literacy will also increase.

Development of Discovery Learning and Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP) Based Learning Devices to Trains Students’ Critical Thinking Skills on Global Warming Materials

This study aims to develop learning tools for the Discovery Learning model based on the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP) which are valid, practical and effective for training students' critical thinking skills on global warming. This research is a development research with the ADDIE model (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) and is tested in SMA Negeri 1 Menganti with One Group Pre test – Posttest Design. Data collection through observation, tests and questionnaires. Data analysis techniques using descriptive quantitative analysis, qualitative and parametric statistical tests. The results of the study show that the learning tools developed are in the valid category, the learning tools developed are practical in terms of the implementation of the lesson plans and the learning activities of active students according to the stages of Discovery Learning syntax, the learning tools developed are effective in terms of from Increased critical thinking skills seen from the n-gain in the high category , there is an increase in students' critical thinking skills, there is no difference increasing critical thinking skills from one class to another.  It was concluded that the discovery learning model based on Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) Global Warming material developed was valid, practical, and effective

ARGUMENTATION SKILL IN STEM-EDP WORKSHEET FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS: VALIDITY ASPECT

Argumentation skill need to be enhanced through contextual problem with integrated STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). This study aims to develop worksheet of STEM-EDP based worksheets that focus on students' arguments on the topic of climate change. This research is a Research and Development (R&amp;D) study using the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) focused on ADD stages. Worksheet designs are prepared by containing STEM indicators accompanied by worksheets that refer to aspects of Toulmin's Argument Pattern. The validity by two lecturers of Physics Education obtained content feasibility aspects (90.00%), linguistic aspects (91.25%), presentation aspects (93.75%), and graphical aspects (83.75%). The conclusion is that STEM-EDP based worksheets fall into the very valid category with a validity value of 89.69%. STEM-EDP based worksheets that focus on students' arguments on the topic of climate change are feasible to implement in classroom learning.

Effects of online whiteboard-based collaborative argumentation scaffolds on group-level cognitive regulations, written argument skills and regulation patterns

Argumentation involves collaboration and regulation of learning. In recent years, regulation of learning, which involves self-, co-, and socially shared regulations, has attracted much attention across a range of domains. To date, studies on these forms of regulation, especially on cognitive regulation, have explored the temporal and sequential patterns of regulatory processes using various sample sizes, especially in collaborative learning, whereas few studies were found on how different argumentation scaffolds affect the structure of these three types of regulation. With the maturity of cloud computing and 5G technology, many kinds of collaborative whiteboards can be adopted to support students' argumentation. In this study, Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) and Nussbaum's Argument Vee Diagram (AVD) scaffolds were integrated into an online whiteboard to assist with collaborative argumentation. A total of 193 pre-service teachers of five intact classes were recruited and evenly assigned to the control cohort, the TAP cohort and the AVD cohort. This study conducted a quasi-experiment for 6 weeks, collecting pretests on prior instructional design knowledge & prior argumentation skills and individual metacognition as covariates, screen recording of online whiteboard-based argumentation activities, and group argumentative reports. Using MANCOVA and epistemic network analysis (ENA), this study drew the following conclusions: (1) Compared to the conventional discussion, TAP and AVD scaffolds respectively activated prominently more self-regulation and co-regulation. However, in socially shared regulation, there was no significant difference between the two scaffolds and the conventional discussion; (2) The TAP and AVD scaffolds significantly enhanced students' written argument skills compared to the conventional discussion, but no significant difference existed in the TAP and AVD scaffolds for improving students' written argument skills since the AVD scaffold evoked a great deal of ineffective co-regulation; (3) In the claim phase, the TAP scaffold activated a stronger connection between co-regulation and socially shared regulation than the other two scaffolds, while the AVD scaffold had a connection between self-regulation and socially shared regulation that was stronger than the conventional discussion and as strong as the TAP scaffold. In the justification phase, the AVD scaffold showed a far stronger connection between self-regulation and co-regulation, while the TAP scaffold illustrated a stronger connection between co-regulation and socially shared regulation. In the rebuttal phase, all three scaffolds showed the strongest connection between self-regulation and co-regulation. This study has implications for effectively using online whiteboards to support productive argumentation, in turn boosting argumentation skills along with regulation characteristics of productive argumentation.

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.

Making sense of L2 written argumentation with keystroke logging

This study examines associations between writing behaviors manifested by keystroke analytics and the formulation of argument elements in L2 undergraduate writers' writing processes. Ninety-nine persuasive essays written by L2 undergraduate writers were human annotated for Toulmin argument elements. The corresponding keystroke logs were segmented and analyzed to characterize the dynamics of writing processes for different categories of the elements. A multinomial mixed-effects logistic regression model was built to predict argument categories using the keystroke analytics. The study reported that L2 undergraduate writers' text production for final claims and primary claims featured P-bursts (execution processes delimited by pauses exceeding 2 seconds) of longer spans but lower production fluency compared to that for data. In addition, fewer revisions were observed when L2 writers were constructing final claims than when they were formulating data. These findings shed light on the varying cognitive loads and activities L2 undergraduate writers may experience when building different argument elements in written argumentation.

Penerapan Model Adi (Argument Driven Inquiry) Berbasis Argumentasi Toulmin Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Peserta Didik SMA

Efforts that can be made to facilitate the improvement of students' critical thinking skills are to apply the ADI (Argument Driven Inquiry) learning model. It is a learning model that gives students opportunity to learn in reflective scientific inquiry so they can develop argumentation skills and critical thinking. The purpose of this study was to obtain data on (1) implementation of ADI model on sound wave material, (2) improvement students' critical thinking skills after applying ADI model based on Toulmin's argumentation. The type of research is true experiments with pre-test-post-test control group research design. Data collection was carried out using observation, tests and questionnaires. The results showed that learning physics using ADI model could be carried out very well with percentage score of 94,23%. The results of pre-test and post-test data analysis shows that the increase of critical thinking skills of experimental class students is in medium category and control class is in low category. The results of student response questionnaire data analysis showed that stages of ADI model were implemented well in class with percentage score of 84,16%. This shows that ADI model can be used to improve students' critical thinking skills.

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.