No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Uses of Argument
Abstract
A central theme throughout the impressive series of philosophical books and articles Stephen Toulmin has published since 1948 is the way in which assertions and opinions concerning all sorts of topics, brought up in everyday life or in academic research, can be rationally justified. Is there one universal system of norms, by which all sorts of arguments in all sorts of fields must be judged, or must each sort of argument be judged according to its own norms? In The Uses of Argument (1958) Toulmin sets out his views on these questions for the first time. In spite of initial criticisms from logicians and fellow philosophers, The Uses of Argument has been an enduring source of inspiration and discussion to students of argumentation from all kinds of disciplinary background for more than forty years.
... We aim to address these fundamental issues through scientific argumentation. This idea is deeply rooted in philosophy [5] and has evolved significantly through educational research [5,6]. Scientific argumentation is a proven strategy to help improve critical thinking that provides a schema for justifying the relevance of the retrieved knowledge in problem solving. ...
... We aim to address these fundamental issues through scientific argumentation. This idea is deeply rooted in philosophy [5] and has evolved significantly through educational research [5,6]. Scientific argumentation is a proven strategy to help improve critical thinking that provides a schema for justifying the relevance of the retrieved knowledge in problem solving. ...
... Moreover, these assessments must account for the complexity of scientific reasoning, the use of evidence, and how students articulate and justify their claims [35]. As a result, educators and researchers have developed diverse methodologies, such as Toulmin's argumentation model [5,36], which emphasize the structure of arguments, as well as rubrics that measure the quality of evidence and reasoning in students' responses [37]. ...
Scientific argumentation is an important science and engineering practice and a necessary 21st Century workforce skill. Due to the nature of large enrollment classes, it is difficult to individually assess students and provide feedback on their argumentation. The recent developments in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) may provide a solution. In this study we investigate methods using NLP and ML to assess and understand students' argumentation. Specifically, we investigate the use of topic modeling to analyze student essays of argumentation after solving a problem in the recitation section of an introductory calculus-based physics course four semesters. We report on the emergent themes present in each semester.
... Este tipo de actividad no es usual en estos cursos universitarios, donde lo habitual es solicitar demostrar afirmaciones verdaderas (Lew y Zazkis, 2019). Por otro lado, en el análisis realizado de las prácticas utilizamos de manera articulada el modelo de Toulmin (2003), para identificar y clasificar las estructuras argumentativas propuestas, y los niveles de RAE propuestos en el EOS, para reconocer el grado de generalidad de los objetos y procesos implicados en las prácticas argumentativas. ...
... Examinar las estructuras de argumentación en las clases de matemáticas proporciona una herramienta potente para comprender mejor las formas en las que los profesores enseñan la demostración y cómo los estudiantes llegan a comprenderla (Knipping y Reid, 2019). En este sentido, como mencionamos, diferentes autores siguieron el modelo de Toulmin (2003) para analizar las argumentaciones que desarrollan los estudiantes en el aula de matemáticas. Este modelo proporciona una poderosa herramienta para distinguir diferentes tipos de argumentos (pasos de la argumentación) empleados en un proceso de demostración (Mariotti et al., 2018). ...
... Estos autores adoptan la idea de razonamiento de Peirce, como proceso mediante el cual se llega a una conclusión a partir de unas premisas, y conduce a un conocimiento verdadero para quien razona. Así, Soler-Álvarez y Manrique (2014) afirman que un razonamiento para Peirce se puede considerar un tipo de argumento según Toulmin (2003). En efecto, para Toulmin un argumento es un discurso oral o escrito producto de un proceso compuesto por tres elementos básicos: la conclusión (se manifiesta una afirmación u opinión cuyo valor se está tratando de establecer), los datos (permiten apoyar la afirmación realizada, es decir, la conclusión) y la garantía (posibilita que el paso de los datos a la conclusión sea legítimo, mediante una justificación a partir de inferencias basadas en reglas generales, principios, etc.). ...
En este trabajo investigamos qué estrategias de argumentación desarrollan estudiantes al comienzo de sus estudios universitarios cuando formulan y justifican propiedades algebraicas. Analizamos el grado de razonamiento algebraico y los errores observados, relacionándolos con los tipos de argumentaciones empleadas. Los resultados muestran que los estudiantes consideran suficiente la prueba en casos particulares y no desarrollan argumentaciones que validen la veracidad o falsedad de las identidades algebraicas. Además, el carácter más algebraico no garantiza una mayor pertinencia en la argumentación propuesta. A pesar de las dificultades observadas, las discusiones permitieron a los estudiantes reconstruir argumentos inicialmente incorrectos o incompletos.
... Multiple authors have adopted Toulmin's model ( [6]) to characterize the arguments proposed by groups of students and document their difficulties ( [7], [8], [9]). This model is a powerful tool for describing and comparing the arguments that arise in the formulation of conjectures, as well as those that occur in the development of proofs of previously conjectured statements ( [2]). ...
... The argument as an emergent systemic object of an argumentation process ( [11]) is composed of three basic elements ( [6]): the claim or conclusion (expresses a statement or opinion whose truth is being established), the data (supporting the conclusion), and the warrant (enables the transition from the data to the conclusion to be legitimate, through a justification from inferences based on general rules, principles, etc.). Three auxiliary elements can also be considered to describe an argument ( [6]): the backing (other certainties supporting the warrant), the modal qualifier (degree of strength conferred by the warrant accompanying the conclusion), and the rebuttals (conditions under which the warrant could be invalidated). ...
... The argument as an emergent systemic object of an argumentation process ( [11]) is composed of three basic elements ( [6]): the claim or conclusion (expresses a statement or opinion whose truth is being established), the data (supporting the conclusion), and the warrant (enables the transition from the data to the conclusion to be legitimate, through a justification from inferences based on general rules, principles, etc.). Three auxiliary elements can also be considered to describe an argument ( [6]): the backing (other certainties supporting the warrant), the modal qualifier (degree of strength conferred by the warrant accompanying the conclusion), and the rebuttals (conditions under which the warrant could be invalidated). ...
... While most studies on teacher competence focus on teaching abilities using frameworks such as Practical Reasoning (PR; Toulmin, 1958Toulmin, , 2003, the Assessment Use Argument Framework (AUA; Bachman & Palmer, 2010), and the Rubric Use Argument (AUA; Fulcher, 2010), cognitive bootstrapping offers a dynamic approach to quantifying indicators of validity arguments in L2 writing assessments. This approach addresses the call made by Chapelle (2012, p. 41) and Wollenschla¨ger et al. (2016, p. 11). ...
... This study is grounded in frameworks such as Practical Reasoning (PR; Toulmin, 1958Toulmin, , 2003, the Assessment Use Argument Framework (AUA; Bachman & Palmer, 2010), and the Rubric Use Argument (RUA; Fulcher, 2010). These frameworks delineate the validity argument in the assessment process, which depends on data derived from reasoning arguments and the dimensions of writing ratings (Piantadosi et al., 2016). ...
... According to PR, AUA, and RUA, numerous studies have reported positive outcomes in validity arguments (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 2010;Castillo et al., 2023;Fulcher, 2010;Jonsson & Svingby, 2007;Saeli & Rahmati, 2023;Toulmin, 1958Toulmin, , 2003. However, some studies have highlighted limitations in the qualitative analysis of validity arguments, particularly in textoriented educational environments rather than quantitative computing and cognitive bootstrapping. ...
Focusing efficiently on potential weaknesses in the validity argument of writing assessments—such as writing subjectivity, content coverage, criteria vagueness, and raters’ incompetence—has been shown to positively enhance teachers’ overall writing assessment competence (AC). In this study, we propose a computational bootstrapping model of validity argument in L2 writing assessment and compare it to argument-based models such as Practical Reasoning (PR), Assessment Use Argument (AUA), and Rubric Use Argument (RUA). Specifically, this computational model gradually improves the validity argument by addressing subtle deficiencies in previous assessment competence and constructing a bootstrapping process for the validity argument. We collected data from the Chinese English Teachers’ Writing Assessment Competence Corpus (CETWACC), which includes texts from a total of Chinese L2 teachers in higher education. The corpus comprises six levels and 60 items detailing how these teachers perform in: (i) construction, (ii) reflection, (iii) externalization, (iv) internalization, (v) enhancement, and (vi) reconstruction. The findings suggest that the Cognitive Bootstrapping Model (CBM) significantly enhances teachers’ assessment competence through reasoned arguments and more scientific measures of validity arguments using computational algorithms. Overall, this study emphasizes the computational evidence of validity arguments and explores the subtle process of micro-changes in L2 writing assessment, transitioning from argument-based approaches to algorithmic methods. The results have implications for discussions on the role of validity argument bootstrapping in current writing assessments, offering a universally applicable and operationally feasible model for validating writing assessments.
... The instruction in argument and research becomes even more crucial to students' success in academia when one considers that many students are starting off "behind" and are unable to pass an entry-level writing test and must take basic or developmental English in their first year, whether matriculating at a 4-year or 2-year institution (National Center for Higher Education and Public Policy, 2010). For many years, Toulmin's (2003) structural model of argument (claim, warrant (logic), data (evidence), counterargument, qualifier, rebuttal) has dominated college-level teaching of argumentation. A growing trend to incorporate a more dialectic approach or social constructivist approach to the teaching of argument has been developing (Graff, 2003;Newell et al., 2011). ...
... Nussbaum et al. (2018) explored alternatives to the Toulmin model of argument, such as Walton's dialogue theory and the Bayesian model, which focuses on probability. Nussbaum et al.'s main thesis was that although Toulmin's (2003) structural model is useful, it tends to encourage students to dissect parts of a completed argument, whereas Walton's (2008) dialogue method is more generative of critical-thinking questions relating to the argument's strengths and weaknesses. Nussbaum and Edwards (2011) and other researchers (Nussbaum et al., 2018) used Walton's dialectic method to teach students how to critique, evaluate, and integrate elements of arguments on both sides of a controversial issue in order to construct stronger arguments that incorporated more than one perspective on an issue. ...
... Because this study explored the effect of including instruction in argumentation in the research and outlining phases of writing the paper, it will provide more information about how the dialectical method may be used in instruction. This study's findings have indicated that including instruction early in the research stage of the paper, using a combination of Toulmin's (2003) structural method and Walton's (2017) dialectic method of argumentation, which employs the critical questioning of claims and evidence as a strategy for weighing evidence and either rebutting or integrating counter-claims, results in students creating stronger arguments in which various perspectives have been included. The effect of the instruction was based on the results of researching and building an argument, as the students create an outline for their research paper. ...
... Menurut Sadler & Zeidler (2005) argumentasi toulmin sangat cocok digunakan untuk menganalisis sebuah argumentasi. Toulmin (2003), menyatakan bahwa argumentasi toulmin memiliki 6 komponen yakni Claim, Groud/data, Warrant, Backing, Qualifier, dan Rebuttal. Ketika menggunakan argumentasi dalam proses pembelajaran, dibutuhkan bahan ajar yang dapat digunakan dalam semua pelajaran Lembar kerja merupakan suatu sarana yang dibutuhkan peserta didik dalam semua mata pelajaran termasuk fisika. ...
... Argumentasi toulmin memiliki beberapa komponen, menurut Toulmin (2003) komponen argumentasi terdiri dari enam komponen yakni: . 2, Juli 2023, 81 -90 ISSN 2830-3881 (media 0nline) Gambar 3. Penjelasan argumentasi toulmin Gambar 4. Contoh argumentasi toulmin 2) Lembar kerja berisikan soal (permasalahan) yang berkaitan kehidupan sehari-hari Pada lembar kerja yang dikembangkan permasalahan yang dibahas sangat berkaitan mengenai kehidupan sehari-hari tentang pemanasan global. ...
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui hasil validitas lembar kerja pada materi pemanasan global berbasis argumentasi toulmin untuk meningkatkan kemampuan pemecahan masalah. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian dengan menggunakan metode R&D dengan model pengembangan ADDIE. Model ini menggunakan tiga tahapan dalam penelitian yakni, tahap analisis (analyse) yaitu untuk mengetahui jenis kebutuhan peserta didik mengenai lembar kerja pemanasan global, tahap desain (design) yaitu merancang lembar kerja yang akan dikembangkan, dan tahap pengembangan (development) yaitu menyusun dan melakukan validasi pada lembar kerja berbasis argumentasi toulmin yang dikembangkan. Validitas dalam lembar kerja yang dikembangkan dinilai dari beberapa aspek yakni, aspek didaktik dilihat dari penggunaan dari lembar kerja, aspek konstruktif dinilai dari pengunaan kalimat serta bahasa yang digunakan dalam lembar kerja, dan aspek teknis dilihat dari tampilan, judul, desain, dan lain-lain. Teknik analisis dilakukan dengan cara menghitung hasil validitas lembar kerja dari 3 validator yakni, 2 dosen ahli dan 1 guru SMA. Hasil analisis terhadap lembar kerja menunjukkan bahwa nilai rata-rata dari ketiga validator pada aspek didaktik sebesar 97,5% dengan kategori sangat valid, pada aspek konstruktif sebesar 100% dengan kategori sangat valid, dan pada aspek teknis sebesar 95% dengan kategori sangat valid. Berdasarkan hasil tersebut nilai rata-rata validitas dari seluruh aspek didapatkan nilai sebesar 97,5% dengan kategori sangat valid. Sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa lembar kerja pada materi pemanasan global berbasis argumentasi toulmin untuk meningkatkan kemampuan pemecahan masalah layak untuk digunakan dalam proses pembelajaran. Kata kunci: Lembar kerja, Argumentasi toulmin, Pemanasan global, Pemecahan masalah
... Within the main structure-building sections of an argumentative essay (introduction, main body, and conclusion), different discourse moves, i.e., commonly appearing features marking functional steps in discourse (Clark & Sampson, 2008;Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2022;Felton et al., 2015), can be structured and connected in various ways. One well-established argumentation scheme is the Toulmin (2003) Argument Model, which outlines six essential discourse moves for a strong argument: a claim supported by data connected to the claim through warrants, often reinforced by backing, qualifiers that indicate the claim's strength, and rebuttals that acknowledge and refute potential inaccuracies. ...
... The learning unit adhered to a process-oriented writing approach, encompassing cyclical phases of planning, writing, and revision. In addition, we introduced students to the purposes of argumentative writing and genre-specific patterns for constructing meaning in argumentative writing (Hyland, 1990;Toulmin, 2003). We designed the learning unit in alignment with curriculum guidelines, which stipulated that students should be able to produce argumentative texts (for a discussion of curricular guidelines for writing, see Peltzer et al., 2022). ...
Providing feedback on writing is a vital task in language education, yet its time-consuming nature may lead to limited feedback in large language classes at secondary schools. Rubric and exemplar feedback is more time-efficient than traditional in-text comments, yet its effect on written argumentation requires further investigation. Our experimental study (N = 202 EFL students) addressed this research lacuna and examined the effects of a learning unit with three types of written formative feedback (EG1: rubric + exemplar, EG2: in-text comments, EG3: rubric + exemplar and in-text comments) on written argumentation. EGs were compared to a control group, which received the learning unit without additional feedback. We used an analytic rating to assess the development of deep-level features (structure and coherence) in 808 argumentative essays (across four measurement points comprising writing and revision phases). Results revealed progress for all groups, with EG1 (rubric + exemplar) outperforming the control group at measurement point three and outperforming EG2 and the control group at measurement point four. Progress regarding rebuttals was largest in EG1. Our findings indicate that rubric + exemplar feedback benefits written argumentation, in particular the inclusion of rebuttals, and that more feedback does not necessarily result in more writing improvements.
... We adapt structures and concepts of argument elements from Toulmin (2003) and Schum (1994). Figure 10.2 outlines the basic structure of a simple evidentiary argument and introduces key elements: First, the claim is a proposition we wish to support with data. ...
... Toulmin's model of argument assessment [80] was presented because of its wellestablished practicality in science teaching [70] and teachers' familiarity with the CER framework [81]. First, we briefly refreshed teachers' memory with concrete examples of implementing Toulmin's model. ...
As consensus towards teaching science for citizenship grows, so grows the need to prepare science teachers to pursue this goal. Implementation of socioscientific issues (SSI) is one of the most prominent theoretical and practical frameworks developed to support scientific literacy and preparing students as informed citizens. However, implementation of SSI holds great challenges for science teachers. Longitudinal professional development (PD) programs were designed to overcome these barriers, yet at the same time many educational systems lack the resources, both in terms of budget and time to meet such intense programs. In this paper, we introduce a design of a short-term PD course that was conducted in Israel. The PD was specifically tailored for secondary school science teachers, with the goal to support them in implementing SSI. Employing an educational design research framework, we tested our PD design over a span of three consecutive years. Through an iterative design process, we were able to make modifications to the program based on data collected and analyzed from the previous year. The structure of the PD is based on four SSI aspects: (a) introduction to SSI, (b) argumentation in SSI context, (c) SSI operationalization, and (d) science communication. In this paper, we provide detailed explanations for each of these aspects, justify the changes made to the PD design, and highlight both promising and less effective strategies for engaging teachers in SSI. Ultimately, we propose a comprehensive SSI PD model that can effectively prepare teachers to take their initial steps in implementing SSI, while remaining adaptable to diverse educational systems.
... Argumentasi ilmiah adalah berpikir ilmiah yang memerlukan pemikiran kritis untuk memberikan sebuah alasan atas suatu informasi berdasarkan fakta (Sari & Nada, 2021). Suatu pernyataan yang disertai dengan data pendukung dan sesuai dengan datanya maka pernyataan tersebut dapat dipertimbangkan kebenarannya (Toulmin, 2003). Komponen argumentasi ilmiah yang relevan terdiri dari pernyataan (claim), bukti (evidence), dan pembenaran bukti (reasoning) (Sampson & Scleigh, 2016). ...
Argumentasi ilmiah memegang peranan penting dalam pembelajaran. Kenyataan yang diperoleh menunjukkan bahwa keterampilan argumentasi peserta didik masih tergolong rendah. Kesulitan membangun argumentasi disebabkan peserta didik kesulitan dalam memahami konsep argumentasi, kesulitan menggunakan bukti yang relevan untuk mendukung argumen, serta kesulitan menyusun argumen yang logis. Rendahnya peserta didik dalam berargumentasi juga disebabkan kegiatan pembelajaran yang konvensional dan belum melatihkan kemampuan berargumentasi. Sehingga dibutuhkan model dan perangkat pembelajaran yang dapat melatihkan peserta didik untuk mengembangkan keterampilan argumentasi ilmiah adalah lembar kerja berbasis Collaborative Argumentation Learning Model (CALM). Penelitian pengembangan ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan validitas lembar kerja berbasis CALM untuk meningkatkan keterampilan argumentasi ilmiah materi pemanasan global. Penelitian ini menggunakan model pengembangan 4-D dengan 4 tahap yaitu define (pendefinisian), design (perancangan), develop (pengembangan), dan disseminate (penyebaran). Namun, penelitian ini dibatasi pada tahap develop (pengembangan). Lembar kerja berbasis CALM untuk meningkatkan keterampilan argumentasi ilmiah peserta didik pada materi pemanasan global yang telah dikembangkan termasuk dalam kategori sangat valid secara aspek isi dan konstruksi. Hal tersebut didasarkan pada hasil validitas lembar kerja sebesar 96% dengan kategori sangat valid, sehingga lembar kerja yang dikembangkan sangat valid dan layak untuk digunakan dalam kegiatan pembelajaran.
... By directly addressing these specific areas through targeted instruction, the study suggests that perceived difficulty in writing could be lessened. This approach could involve teaching students about different genres of academic writing, such as research papers, essays, and reports, and providing them with explicit instruction on how to construct arguments using evidence (Toulmin, 2003). ...
Effective communication skills are important for vocational trainees' academic and career success. However, limited research has examined language learning difficulties specific to Ethiopian technical contexts. This study explored self-perceived English language difficulties among trainees in building construction, road construction, water construction, surveying, architectural design, wood science technology programs at the Federal Technical and Vocational Training Institute. It aimed to identify difficult language skills and determine relationships between perceived difficulties and demographic factors. A sample of 138 trainees from Civil Technology Faculty of a TVT Institute was selected through stratified random sampling. Data were collected using a questionnaire measuring perceived difficulty of reading, writing, listening and speaking skills. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 purposively selected trainees. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and constant comparison were employed for quantitative and qualitative analyses. Quantitative findings showed academic writing skills perceived as most difficult, particularly understanding conventions. Academic listening skills like note-taking and summarizing also posed challenges. Interviews revealed unfamiliarity with genres and lack of background knowledge exacerbated difficulties. Perceptions differed by trainees' program, gender and English proficiency. Thematic analysis identified factors like anxiety, experience, and self-efficacy as influencing perceptions. The study provided a comprehensive understanding of TVT Institute trainees' academic language needs in Ethiopia. Targeted support is recommended to scaffold challenging skills based on identified individual differences and modifiable difficulties. Mainstreaming language development across the curriculum optimizes trainees' preparedness for technical careers and lifelong learning. This mixed methods exploration of language difficulty perceptions contributes to knowledge on dimensions shaping TVT Institute students' experiences. Findings inform tailored instruction and program improvements to better equip diverse learners for workplace competencies.
... Στην κοινότητα της εκπαίδευσης στις Φ.Ε έχει αξιοποιηθεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό το μοντέλο επιχειρηματολογίας κατά Toulmin (MT), όπως και μια απλή εκδοχή του (McNeill & Krajcik, 2012), τόσο σαν εργαλείο αξιολόγησης των επιχειρημάτων των μαθητών (Τσιφτσής & Χαλκιά, 2022· Osborne et al., 2004 όσο και σαν εργαλείο υποστήριξης των μαθητών στην μάθηση τους (Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007). Σύμφωνα με τον Toulmin (2003), τα βασικά στοιχεία ενός απλού επιχειρήματος είναι: τα δεδομένα (συγκεκριμένα και αποδεκτά στοιχεία), ο ισχυρισμός (το συμπέρασμα του επιχειρήματος), οι εγγυήσεις (λόγοι, αρχές, κανόνες που είναι γενικά αποδεκτά και θα κάνουν την σύνδεση μεταξύ δεδομένων και συμπεράσματος). Η εγγύηση θεωρείται το πιο καθοριστικό στοιχείο για την εγκυρότητα ενός επιστημονικού επιχειρήματος. ...
Αν και είναι ευρέως αποδεκτή η σημασία της επιχειρηματολογίας ως επιστημονικής και διδακτικής πρακτικής αυτή σπάνια συμβαίνει στις αίθουσες διδασκαλίας των ΦΕ. Στην παρούσα εργασία, αναγνωρίζοντας τη σημασία που έχει η αξία των καθημερινών πρακτικών επιχειρηματολογίας στην πορεία μύησης των μαθητών/τριών στην επιστημονική επιχειρηματολογία, προσπαθούμε να αναδείξουμε τα χαρακτηριστικά και την δομή της αυθόρμητης επιχειρηματολογίας που συμβαίνει σε μια τάξη φυσικής Β΄ γυμνασίου, όταν οι μαθητές/ριες προσπαθούν να εξηγήσουν ένα απροσδόκητο γεγονός. Η ανάλυση των δεδομένων της έρευνας έδειξε ότι οι περισσότεροι/ες μαθητές/ριες δεν θέλουν να εξηγούν/δικαιολογούν φαινόμενα που δεν καταλαβαίνουν ή τα θεωρούν φυσιολογικά, ενώ όταν προχωρούν σε εξηγήσεις/δικαιολογήσεις, αξιοποιούν δεδομένα, καταλήγουν σε συμπέρασμα, δεν αξιοποιούν όμως την σχολική γνώση ως εγγύηση κατά Toulmin.
... The article advocates for environmental global citizenship, employing Stephen Toulmin's argument model (Toulmin 2003). Toulmin's model enjoys increasing recognition across various disciplines (Kneupper 1978;Yang 2022) and has been adapted for analyzing professional literature (Shpit and Kurovskii 2020) and reviews (Karbach 1987;Polacsek et al. 2018;van Eemeren et al. 2013). ...
The global environmental crisis demands urgent attention and comprehensive action. While governments must prioritise environmental protection and climate change mitigation, the continued depletion of natural resources calls for innovative approaches. One such approach is the Environmental Global Citizenship theory, which offers a perspective on participatory environmental governance while emphasising cultural diversity. The article argues that the idea of global environmental citizenship can help address the challenges associated to the global environmental crisis, outlining a vast theoretical framework to this notion, grounded in a thorough literature review and legal examination of global environmental agreements. Environmental Global Citizenship is presented as a critical, yet non-exclusive strategy for global environmental stewardship, simultaneously advocating for a model of global integration that is rooted in cultural diversity. The manuscript underscores that the concept of Environmental Global Citizenship should form one necessary aspect of a more extensive environmental protection global strategy.
... Such disclosure, particularly when intended to preemptively dispel fears or doubts, can induce reactance, making evaluators more skeptical and resistant to the disclosed information (Brehm, 1966). In the terms of Toulmin's (1958) model of argument, making a claim (such as the disclosure of AI) may disrupt the taken-for-grantedness of a situation, prompting evaluators to examine and possibly challenge the claim's appropriateness-unlike situations where no such claim is made (Harmon, 2019a). ...
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) has found its way into various work tasks, questions about whether its usage should be disclosed and the consequences of such disclosure have taken center stage in public and academic discourse on digital transparency. This article addresses this debate by asking: Does disclosing the usage of AI compromise trust in the user? We examine the impact of AI disclosure on trust across diverse tasks-from communications via analytics to artistry-and across individual actors such as supervisors, subordinates, professors, analysts, and creatives, as well as across organizational actors such as investment funds. Thirteen experiments consistently demonstrate that actors who disclose their AI usage are trusted less than those who do not. Drawing on micro-institutional theory, we argue that this reduction in trust can be explained by reduced perceptions of legitimacy, as shown across various experimental designs (Studies 6-8). Moreover, we demonstrate that this negative effect holds across different disclosure framings, above and beyond algorithm aversion, regardless of whether AI involvement is known, and regardless of whether disclosure is voluntary or mandatory, though it is comparatively weaker than the effect of third-party exposure (Studies 9-13). A within-paper meta-analysis suggests this trust penalty is attenuated but not eliminated among evaluators with favorable technology attitudes and perceptions of high AI accuracy. This article contributes to research on trust, AI, transparency, and legitimacy by showing that AI disclosure can harm social perceptions, emphasizing that transparency is not straightforwardly beneficial, and highlighting legitimacy's central role in trust formation.
... CA is a process in which students engage with one another to persuade and convince others of the validity of their arguments (Wilson-Lopez et al., 2019). CA involves elements such as making a claim, providing evidence, offering a warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier (Toulmin, 2003). This process is based on Vygotsky's social constructivist theory (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978), emphasising the internalisation and development of HOT through social interaction. ...
Traditional educational settings often struggle to effectively support the development of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). Collaborative argumentation has proven to foster these skills, and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) may further enhance these tasks. This case study investigates students' perceptions of GenAI-assisted collaborative argumentation in a graduate Digital Education course. Thirty-six students engaged in ChatGPT-4-supported collaborative argumentation via Discord, followed by interviews. Through inductive and deductive thematic analysis, findings revealed that GenAI significantly aids in deconstructing complex problems, evaluating arguments, and generating creative solutions while enhancing self-regulation and reflection. Challenges like over-reliance on AI, cognitive overload, and biases within AI were identified. This highlights the need for instructional strategies that balance GenAI use with the cultivation of critical, creative, and self-regulated thinking skills, ensuring students stay adept in an AI-driven landscape.
... From this perspective, argumentation, defined as "a process of making claims and providing justification for the claims using evidence" (Cho & Jonassen, 2002), is supposed to have advantages in enhancing critical thinking by encouraging students to reflect on and critically evaluate the quality of established arguments (Ellerton, 2022;Hasnunidah et al., 2020;Sonmez et al., 2020). In the field of argumentation theory, Toulmin's (1958) model, which consists of six element: claims, grounds, warrants, backing, modifiers, and rebuttals, has been widely used for analyzing arguments. Ennis (1987) and Glaser (1941) clarified critical thinking into two dimensions: critical thinking skills and dispositions. ...
Although online argumentation provides students with sufficient time to think, they often lack a clear argument structure and timely guidance during the process. This may negatively affect students’ abilities to support or rebut arguments and to develop their critical thinking skills. In this study, 64 sophomores were evenly assigned to either a control or an experimental group. Each group was further divided into four teams, with each team comprising both a pro and a con side; the former needed to argue for a given position and the latter against that position. Using the collaborative online platform “ShiMo,” the control group engaged in textual argumentation, whereas the experimental group conducted their argumentation by drawing argument maps (AMs). Furthermore, students could also seek assistance from ChatGPT 3.5 when encountering difficulties in creating AMs. Both questionnaires and content analysis were used to evaluate students’ critical thinking skills and perceptions. The findings indicated that ChatGPT and AM-supported online argumentation effectively promoted students’ critical thinking skills, encouraging them to engage in more rebuttal activities through analysis, evaluation, and creation. Students perceived that AMs clearly visualized argument structure, albeit providing limited assistance in facilitating information gathering. ChatGPT provided detailed information and fostered a positive attitude toward argumentation among students; however, the accuracy and appropriateness of the provided information remained doubtful. These findings have several implications. College students’ critical thinking skills can be improved by integrating teacher guidance into ChatGPT and AM-supported online argumentation, being skeptical of ChatGPT’s outputs, and improving information literacy to efficiently utilize ChatGPT.
... For instance, when we use "suppose the data is not representative" as a premise for an argument, we express the proposition that the data is not representative hypothetically. The target or conclusion is also a proposition but can be an illocutionary act type of different kinds, including a directive, a commissive, an expressive, and a declarative [32,125]. Finally, arguments can also be complex where the premise of one argument can be the target of another and so on [51]. ...
The reference to assumptions in how practitioners use or interact with machine learning (ML) systems is ubiquitous in HCI and responsible ML discourse. However, what remains unclear from prior works is the conceptualization of assumptions and how practitioners identify and handle assumptions throughout their workflows. This leads to confusion about what assumptions are and what needs to be done with them. We use the concept of an argument from Informal Logic, a branch of Philosophy, to offer a new perspective to understand and explicate the confusions surrounding assumptions. Through semi-structured interviews with 22 ML practitioners, we find what contributes most to these confusions is how independently assumptions are constructed, how reactively and reflectively they are handled, and how nebulously they are recorded. Our study brings the peripheral discussion of assumptions in ML to the center and presents recommendations for practitioners to better think about and work with assumptions.
Teacher leaders (TLs) play a pivotal role in monitoring and fostering teacher awareness to enhance the quality of teaching practices, particularly in domains like mathematics education. Within the mathematics curriculum across various nations, this monitoring effort has been channelled towards nurturing crucial competencies such as argumentation among students. While existing literature underscores the significance of instructional support in fostering student argumentation, it’s imperative to recognize that developing a keen sense of noticing extends beyond merely understanding students’ thinking processes. It involves a multifaceted approach encompassing elements like deciphering teacher responses. In the context of a professional development initiative aimed at supporting TLs to promote argumentation within mathematics classrooms, we delved into the participation of novice TLs in a program session. Our goal was to assess their capacity to identify critical events crucial for supporting argumentation in teaching and learning scenarios related to mathematics. During the session, TLs were presented with a video depicting a student argumentation scenario, tasked with recognizing key events and interpreting them in the context of fostering argumentation through instructional support. We employed an adapted noticing scale van Es (in: Sherin MG, Jacobs V, Philipp R (eds) Mathematics teacher noticing: seeing through teachers' eyes, Routledge, Abingdon, pp 134–151, 2011) to evaluate their responses, explicitly focusing on critical events within argumentative orchestration. Findings show that TLs demonstrated an estimable level of proficiency in recognizing essential events of argumentation. Notably, a majority showed an ability to establish meaningful connections between identified critical events and a framework for argumentative orchestration. This suggests promising potential for TLs to support and facilitate argumentation within mathematics education settings effectively.
Judicial proof can be reinterpreted as a dynamic process of dialectical argumentation, based on modern argumentation theory and situated within the adversarial legal framework. It reflects the dialogical nature of reasoning, where plaintiffs and defendants present supporting arguments, challenge opposing claims through counterarguments and engage in interactive exchanges to persuade the adjudicator. The adjudicator carefully evaluates these arguments to ensure they meet established standards of proof and to determine whether the burdens of production and persuasion have been satisfied. This process develops through distinct phases: constructing arguments during evidence presentation, interacting with arguments during cross-examination and evaluating arguments during closing arguments. By drawing on minimal rationality theory, this study highlights that rational fact-finding emerges not from rigid probabilistic methods but from the structured interplay of arguments and counterarguments that characterises adversarial proceedings. This reconceptualisation clarifies the rational, explanatory and dialogical aspects of judicial proof, offering both a stronger theoretical understanding of its logical structure and practical insights into how adversarial processes ensure fairness and accuracy in fact-finding.
Facts of legal cases are formulated in courtroom interactions, where lawyers ground their factual propositions in admissible evidence by construing legal elements and real-world realities. Field is a contextual variable realising ideational meanings through construing phenomena of activities, items, and their properties. Analysing field elements in case facts manifests the internal relations of phenomena, enabling judges to identify key elements in the grounds of lawyers’ reasoning and their logical relations to legal claims. Drawing on the FIELD system from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the ideational dimension of the court trial register, this paper proposes a theoretical framework to analyse how lawyers in China’s court trials (particularly civil contract dispute trials) construe case facts through field elements and their interrelations. The findings reveal that lawyers construe different types of field elements and their interrelations to explain the fundamental attributes of evidence: authenticity, relevance, and legality. These field elements distinguish between everyday realities and legally significant facts. By construing case facts through field elements and their interrelations, lawyers could improve the technicality and rationality of trial examination, thereby offering courts or judges key elements to adjudicate facts and promote the efficiency and judicial justice of verdicts.
Formative feedback fosters writing and student motivation, but differential effects on writers with varying achievement levels are under-researched. It remains unclear to what extent time-efficient methods such as rubric and exemplar feedback support less-proficient writers. Our study addresses this gap by comparing the effects of different formative feedback methods on deep-level features in writing, self-efficacy, enjoyment, and feedback perceptions in two groups of secondary school EFL students: students designated at-risk of writing failure (n = 101) and more proficient developing writers (n = 101). We conducted a randomized controlled intervention study with four conditions: EG1 (rubric + exemplar feedback), EG2 (in-text comments), EG3 (rubric + exemplar feedback and in-text comments), and CG1 (learning unit without additional feedback). Findings showed that rubric + exemplar feedback had a differential effect, particularly benefitting at-risk writers. In both achievement-level groups, in-text comments (EG2) led to comparable learning progress as in the control group without additional feedback (CG1). Importantly, more feedback (EG3) only had additional benefits for developing writers, while at-risk writers in EG3 made similar progress to at-risk writers in the control condition. At-risk writers had lower self-efficacy and writing enjoyment, with no significant changes over time, while developing writers experienced slight losses in enjoyment. Both at-risk and developing EFL writers had positive perceptions of all feedback types, though the motivational impact of the feedback was rated lower than its quality. In conclusion, although we did not observe motivational changes, rubric + exemplar feedback seems helpful for at-risk writers and is positively received by students.
Inden for uddannelsesområdet er der stigende interesse for at bruge generativ kunstig intelligens (GenAI) i undervisningen. Dette eksplorative casestudie fokuserer på, om GenAI kan understøtte videnskonstruktion og kollaborativ læring i videregående uddannelser. Gennem analyser af kvalitative data, herunder interaktioner, fokusgruppeinterviews, skriftlige opgaver og logfiler fra ChatGPT, undersøges det, om GenAI-værktøjer kan skabe dialog og styrke samarbejdet mellem studerende i arbejdet med kursuslitteratur. Med afsæt i Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) samt vores empiriske data argumenterer vi for, at meningsfuldt engagement med GenAI kan stimulere de studerendes videnskonstruktion. Dette sker særligt igennem eksplorative samtaler i arbejdet med og omkring ChatGPT. Resultaterne tyder på, at GenAI-værktøjer og en klar opgavestruktur kan understøtte de studerendes indbyrdes dialoger, hvilket potentielt kan føre til øget videnskonstruktion.
Cet article analyse cinq logiciels de visualisation de l’argumentation (MindMup, Rationale, bCisive, OVA et MindManager) à travers le prisme théorique de la triple distinction d’O’Keefe entre argument1 (contenu propositionnel), making-an-argument (acte de langage) et argument₂ (interaction argumentative). À partir d’exemples tirés de la pièce « Douze hommes en colère », l’étude examine comment ces outils traitent différentes dimensions de l’argumentation. Si la plupart des outils représentent efficacement les structures d’argument1, ils peinent à saisir les complexités des actes de langage et des dynamiques interactionnelles. L’analyse révèle que les outils de visualisation rencontrent des limitations inhérentes pour représenter des aspects cruciaux comme les rapports de force, la force narrative et les dimensions émotionnelles des échanges argumentatifs. Plutôt que de voir ces limitations comme de simples contraintes techniques, l’article suggère de reconsidérer les outils de visualisation comme des instruments heuristiques éclairant des aspects spécifiques de l’argumentation.
This paper analyzes five argumentation visualization software tools (MindMup, Rationale, bCisive, OVA, and MindManager) through the theoretical lens of O'Keefe's triple distinction between argument₁ (propositional content), making-an-argument (speech act) and argument₂ (argumentative interaction). Using examples from the play “Twelve Angry Men,” the study examines how these tools handle different dimensions of argumentation. While most tools effectively represent argument₁ structures, they struggle to capture the complexities of speech acts and interactive dynamics. The analysis reveals that visualization tools face inherent limitations in representing crucial aspects such as power relations, narrative force, and emotional dimensions of argumentative exchanges. Rather than viewing these limitations as mere technical constraints, the paper suggests reconsidering visualization tools as heuristic instruments illuminating specific aspects of argumentation.
This paper examines syntactic negation in conspiracy theories from a discourse and constructionist perspective. A corpus study provides an overview of the use of negation in different conspiracy theories, where it can serve to deny the official version, i.e., the visible plot, in order to present the conspiracy theory (the invisible plot) as more believable. The corpus linguistic approach reveals a syntactic pattern of negation, which can be considered a form-meaning pair in the sense of Construction Grammar and which is analyzed in more detail in two selected conspiracy theories (attack on the Berlin Christmas market 2016 and "climate change lie"): [es V geben Neg kein X NP ] (e.g., es gibt keine Verletzten [engl. there are no injured people], es gibt keinen Zusammenhang zwischen CO2 und Lufttemperatur [engl. there is no correlation between CO2 and air temperature). Based on 229 instances, the paper describes the form, meaning, and especially the discursive function of this so-called inexistence construction. For instance, the construction occurs in the context of a specific pattern of argumentation used to deny evidence of the official version. Overall, the article argues for a more intensive study of grammatical phenomena in discourse linguistics and for a stronger combination of Discourse Grammar and Construction Grammar.
The chapter explores wider social change and problem-solving: social change, both analysed using a social learning framework based on the ideas of Lev Vygotsky which is used to critique bourgeois ideas of social change such as Bourdieu, Toulmin, Schatzki and Yeoman. This social learning framework is a dialectical approach to problem-solving at all levels, shown as superior to muddling through and passive and active learning approaches to problem-solving, using examples from care for the elderly and use of AI in public services. Wider social change using collective agency (Trade Unions in workplaces or social movements) too can be interpreted using the social learning framework since learning from experience is essential to the consciousness raising needed to show that capitalism is a historical moment, not naturalistic, and can be replaced by a more rational and fair social system.
Background: Program logic is one of the most used tools by the public policy evaluator. There is, however, little explanation in the evaluation literature about the logical foundations of program logic or discussion of how it may be determined if a program is logical. This paper was born on a long journey that started with program logic and ended with the logic of evaluation. Consistent throughout was the idea that the discipline of program evaluation is a pragmatic one, concerned with applied social science and effective action in complex, adaptive systems. It gradually became the central claim of this paper that evidence-based policy requires sound reasoning more urgently than further development and testing of scientific theory. This was difficult to reconcile with the observation that much evaluation was conducted within a scientific paradigm, concerned with the development and testing of various types of theory. Purpose: This paper demonstrates the benefits of considering the core essence of a program to be a proposition about the value of a course of action. This contrasts with a research-based paradigm in which programs are considered to be a type of theory, and in which experimental and theory-driven evaluations are conducted. Experimental approaches focus on internal validity of knowledge claims about programs and on discovering stable cause and effect relationships—or, colloquially, ‘what works?’. Theory-driven approaches tend to focus on external validity and in the case of the realist approach, the search for transfactual causal mechanisms—extending the ‘what works’ mantra to include ‘for whom and in what circumstances’. On both approaches, evaluation aspires to be a scientific pursuit for obtaining knowledge of general laws of phenomena, or in the case of realists, replicable context-mechanism-outcome configurations. This paper presents and seeks to justify an approach rooted in logic, and that supports anyone to engage in a reasonable and democratic deliberation about the value of a course of action. It is consistent with systems thinking, complexity and the associated limits to certainty for determining the value of a proposed, or actual, course of action in the social world. It suggests that evaluation should learn from the past and have an eye toward the future, but that it would be most beneficial if concerned with evaluating in the present, in addressing the question ‘is this a good idea here and now? Setting: Not applicable. Intervention: Not applicable Research design: Not applicable. Findings: In seeking foundations of program logic, this paper exposes roots that extend far deeper than the post-enlightenment, positivist and post-positivist social science search for stable cause and effect relationships. These roots lie in the 4th century BCE with Aristotle’s ‘enthymeme’. The exploration leads to conclusions about the need for a greater focus on logic and reasoning in the design and evaluation of programs and interventions for the public good. Science and research are shown to play a crucial role in providing reasons or warrants to support a claim about the value of a course of action; however, one subordinate to the alpha-discipline of logical evaluation and decision making that must consider what is feasible given the context, capability and capacity available, not to mention values and ethics. Program Design Logic (PDL) is presented as an accessible and incremental innovation that may be used to determine if a program makes sense ‘on paper’ in the design stage as well as ‘in reality’ during delivery. It is based on a configurationalist theory of causality and the concepts of ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ conditions. It is intended to guide deliberation and decision making across the life cycle of any intervention intended for the public good.
:ملخص
تعيش المؤسسات التعليمية مفارقة لافتة في سعيها إلى تدريس التفكير النقدي؛ فبينما يوجد إجماع على أهميته للمجتمع الديمقراطي واقتصاد المعرفة وسوق العمل، يواجه تعليمه وتعلمه تحديات جوهرية. يناقش هذا المقال خمسة من هذه التحديات، وهي: الطبيعة المركبة للتفكير النقدي التي تُقربه من "المثال" و"الفضيلة"، وصعوبة نقل مهاراته بين السياقات المختلفة، وارتفاع تكلفته المعرفية والوجدانية قياسًا إلى الأساليب الاعتيادية في تدبير شؤون الحياة اليومية، وضعف مهنية المدرسين وافتقارهم إلى التكوين المتخصص والاعتراف الاجتماعي والمؤسساتي، وأخيرًا تعبير التفكير النقدي عن قيم "غربية" قد لا تتناسب مع جميع المجتمعات، لا سيما "الشرقية" منها. بناء على تحليل هذه العوائق، خلص المقال إلى أن تدريس التفكير النقدي مشروع تربوي مجتمعي يتطلب مقاربة شاملة تستحضر المدرس والمتعلم والمواد الدراسية والبيئة الاجتماعية في آن واحد؛ بحيث يحظى المدرس بتكوين مهني واعتراف اجتماعي، وتُراعى الخصائص النفسية والمعرفية للمتعلمين، ويعاد النظر في أساليب تدريس التفكير النقدي ومكانته المدرسية، ويروَّج لقيمه عبر مختلف مؤسسات التنشئة الاجتماعية. أي إننا مطالبون بوضع برنامج للتربية على التفكير النقدي وليس مجرد برنامج لتعليم مهاراته واستعداداته.
الكلمات المفتاحية: التفكير النقدي، المثال، التحويل، المهننة، السياق الثقافي
Teaching Critical Thinking: Obstacles and Paradoxes
Abstract:
Educational institutions face a paradox in teaching critical thinking: while its importance for democratic society, the knowledge economy, and labor markets is widely acknowledged, its teaching and learning encounter fundamental challenges. This article identifies five main obstacles: the complex nature of critical thinking as both an ideal and virtue; the difficulty of transferring skills across contexts; its high cognitive and emotional costs compared to conventional decision-making; the low professional status and inadequate training of teachers; and its association with "Western" values, which may not align with all societies, especially "Eastern" ones. Analyzing these challenges reveals that teaching critical thinking requires a holistic approach that integrates teachers, learners, curriculum, and the social environment. This approach demands professional development and recognition for teachers, attention to students' cognitive characteristics, rethinking teaching methods, and the promotion of critical thinking values across social institutions. Ultimately, we need a program for education in critical thinking, not merely instruction in its skills.
Keywords: Critical thinking, Ideal, Transfer, Professionalization, Cultural context
From the perspective of evidence science, evidential reasoning is the cognitive activity of using evidence to prove the validity of a claim, and it covers almost all of reasoning.
This article analyzes speeches from Day 1 of the 2023 United Nations General Assembly general debates to identify a rhetorical model of place-based argumentation that recognizes the impact of talking from and about a place. Such rhetorical strategies may enhance public deliberations on the international stage. Examples are used to highlight place-based arguments that recognize the inextricable linkages among economic, environmental, and cultural practices that influence and are influenced by global factors, how the rhetoric of differentiated inclusivity can articulate intercommunity and intracommunity relations, and how the inclusion of rhetoric of displacement can enhance speakers’ credibility when talking about places.
Writing is a fundamental language skill that students must master in school-based learning. This study aims to develop a computer-based assessment system for evaluating Indonesian opinion articles, addressing the challenges teachers face in manual writing assessments. Utilizing the initial phases of research and development (R&D) with the ADDIE model, this study conducted a needs analysis through literature reviews, interviews, and questionnaires. Findings indicate the necessity of a computer-based writing assessment system incorporating both machine and human raters. The machine rater evaluates mechanical aspects and vocabulary (word count) using pre-processing techniques in Natural Language Processing (NLP), supported by an Indonesian vocabulary database and punctuation programming. Meanwhile, the human rater, an Indonesian language teacher, conducts assessments via an interactive interface. Testing by four teachers on 40 students revealed that 97.6% of teachers responded positively to the system’s assessment process. This research is particularly relevant in the post-COVID-19 era, highlighting the positive role of technology in advancing language education and information technology. The system can be adapted for assessing other language skills, such as reading, and for large-scale applications like the Indonesian language proficiency test.
This article offers a reflection on the value of an argumentative rhetoric that simultaneously employs the resources of pathos, logos, and ethos to develop mobilizing communication. It will not examine argumentation in its sophistic dimension, nor as a mere set of discursive techniques aimed at coercing the audience's adherence. Instead, we aim to approach it from a primarily communicative perspective, drawing on the reflections of the Belgian philosopher M. Meyer, who dedicates a significant part of his work to the study of argumentative rhetoric.This reflection has the merit of shifting argumentation from the field of pure formal logic and discursive structures to a broader perspective that considers the social and practical implications of argumentative techniques. Under the guidance of this new approach initiated by Michel Meyer, namely problematology[1], argumentation transcends the narrow conception that reduces it to a tool of persuasion, becoming instead a means of reflection that contributes to the development of a new vision of the unity of thought. This unity, which according to Meyer is now to be sought in the articulation of question and answer, highlights the use of argumentation as a principle that structures reflection and sustains the dynamic of questioning and debate. We will therefore explore how M. Meyer’s theory of argumentation, acknowledging the context of problematicity in which it operates, proposes an approach based on the active interaction between the three fundamental dimensions mentioned above to build effective and, moreover, engaging communication.
This research began from the inability of textbooks to present the nonlinearity and complexity of Islamic religious education subject material. The purpose of this study is to find out: 1) the design of the teaching and learning process with hypertext-based e-modules; 2) the relationship of hypertext-based e-module innovation to students' cognitive flexibility; 3) the impact of hypertext-based e-module innovation on student learning achievement. The research method used in this study is mixed methods, which combines qualitative and quantitative research to understand the problem. The results of the study show that: 1) the design of the teaching and learning process with hypertext-based e-modules actualizes the actors of the teaching and learning process in an effort to build knowledge together; 2) the design of the teaching and learning process with hypertext-based e-modules increased students' cognitive flexibility by 47.7%; and 3) the design of the teaching and learning process with hypertext-based e-modules has a positive impact on student learning achievement of 0.77 sigma. Various data analyzes show that the design of the teaching and learning process with hypertext-based e-modules has received a positive response so that it can be used as a suitable auxiliary media for teachers and students.
Investigating students’ thinking in classroom tasks, particularly in science and engineering, is essential for improving educational practices and advancing student learning. In this context, the notion of (WoT) has gained traction in STEM education, offering a framework to explore how students approach and solve interdisciplinary problems. Building on our earlier studies and contributing to ongoing discussions on WoT frameworks, this paper introduces a new WoT framework—Ways of Thinking in Engineering Design-based Physics (WoT4EDP). WoT4EDP integrates five key elements—design, science, mathematics, metacognitive reflection, and computational thinking—within an undergraduate introductory physics laboratory. This novel framework highlights how these interconnected elements foster deeper learning and holistic problem solving in ED-based projects. A key takeaway is that this framework serves as a practical tool for educators and researchers to design, implement, and analyze interdisciplinary STEM activities in physics classrooms. We describe the development of WoT4EDP, situate it within undergraduate STEM education, and characterize its components in detail. Additionally, we compare WoT4EDP with two contemporary frameworks—Dalal (2021) and English (2023)—to glean insights that enhance its application and promote interdisciplinary thinking. This paper is the first of a two-part series. In the upcoming second part, we will demonstrate the application of the WoT4EDP framework, showcasing how it can be used to analyze student thinking in real-world, ED-based physics projects.
Published by the American Physical Society 2025
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan keterampilan argumentasi ilmiah melalui model pembelajaran Argument Driven Inquiry pada siswa kelas X.1 SMA Negeri 1 Polokarto Tahun Pelajaran 2022/2023. Penelitian menggunakan metode PTK dengan empat prosedur dalam pelaksanaan yaitu perencanaan, tindakan, pengamatan, dan refleksi. Setiap siklusnya terdiri dari perencanaan, tindakan, pengamatan dan refleksi. Teknik dalam pengumpulan data menggunakan dokumentasi, lembar observasi dan post test dengan indikator argumentasi ilmiah. Data dan sumber data berasal dari siswa dengan jumlah keseluruhan 36 siswa yang dijadikan sebagai subjek penelitian dan guru mata pelajaran biologi. Teknik analisis data menggunakan deskriptif komparatif . Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwasannya pada siklus I 77% (28 siswa). Pada siklus II 90% (34 siswa). Pada siklus III 88% (32 siswa). Didalam pembelajaran disebutkan apabila telah mencapai ketuntasan secara klasikal > 75%. Model pembelajaran Argument Driven Inquiry memiliki kesempatan bagi siswa untuk mengembangkan sebuah gagasan didukung dengan bukti, dapat mengolah dan menyajikan data, dapat menuliskan dan menyampaikan argumen, dan dapat berdiskusi tentang penyelidikan yang diperoleh. Sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa model pembelajaran Argument Driven Inquiry dapat meningkatkan keterampilan argumentasi ilmiah bagi siswa.
Arthur Schopenhauer is predominantly considered a kind of arch-pessimist and founder of the movement classified as "modern philosophical pessimism," due to his innovative claim to maintain, in a systematic way and on “objective reasons”, that non-being is better than being. However, two other groups of scholars follow different directions. One of them does not deny Schopenhauer's pessimism but attributes it especially to subjective reasons, such as his melancholic behavior. The other group does not even consider Schopenhauer as a pessimist, but, on the contrary, as an optimist, an indication that we lack clear and explicit criteria for understanding what Schopenhauerian pessimism would be. I argue that there is, indeed, a pessimistic "logic" objectively articulated within Schopenhauer's philosophy, and that therefore we must examine Schopenhauerian pessimism according to the philosophical reasons that make up his argumentative plan. To support this hypothesis, my first objective is to outline such a plan, following an informal model of the argumentative analysis. This approach also guides a more reflective critical assessment of his pessimistic "logic". Thus, the second objective is to introduce some parameters for further evaluation of the argumentative reach of Schopenhauerian pessimism.
This paper critiques traditional science assessments and advocates for reform-based learning that supports culturally diverse students, aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). While NGSS promotes collaborative, inquiry-driven practices, these are often difficult to assess through traditional high-stakes tests, which tend to reinforce systemic biases and marginalize students from non-dominant backgrounds. We examine the Lotions and Potions: Science through Black Hair Care curriculum, which uses a culturally sustaining approach, allowing students to respond flexibly in assessments. This approach enables students to participate fully in science practices without needing to conform to dominant cultural norms. Our findings highlight the benefits of culturally sustaining assessments that foster student voice, support diverse sense-making, and challenge exclusionary norms in science education. By positioning students as active knowledge builders who can draw on their cultural identities, such frameworks offer a more inclusive, empowering science learning experience. Future research will expand this model by refining pedagogical practices and curriculum design, particularly through culturally relevant applications of NGSS Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) to further inclusivity in science and engineering education.
Informal arguments are integral to socioscientific discourse. However, even university
students often struggle to judge the plausibility of arguments accurately.
We investigated whether strategic reanalysis while reading, i.e., looking back
and rereading parts of a text, predicts the likelihood of detecting and processing
implausible arguments. In two experiments, participants’ eye movements
were recorded while they read arguments embedded in an expository text. The
text was presented passage by passage and participants judged the plausibility
of each section in turn. The results of Experiment 1 (N = 51) and preregistered
Experiment 2 (N = 93) suggest that processing arguments containing argumentation
fallacies are cognitively effortful, as indicated by eye movement measures
of reanalysis of implausible arguments. The pattern of results supports the idea
that successful detection and processing of implausible information is reflected
in increased reanalysis of flawed arguments, corresponding to strategic processes
of epistemic elaboration. Experiment 3 (N = 115) further examined
whether plausibility judgements reflect reasoners’ perceived argument strength.
Our results suggest that reasoners perceive arguments as plausible when they
deem them both persuasive and free of argumentation fallacies.
En el contexto de un programa de desarrollo profesional docente, este estudio tuvo como propósito caracterizar la coenseñanza de duplas de docentes de educación especial y de matemáticas al promover argumentación en el aula desde una perspectiva inclusiva. Mediante un estudio exploratorio de casos múltiples a partir de las videograbaciones de clases de tres duplas, se distinguieron tipos de coenseñanza en la interacción entre las duplas docentes, y una clasificación de la gestión de la argumentación en coenseñanza. Los análisis de videos muestran que se da una relación bidireccional entre la argumentación y la coenseñanza, en que la promoción de la argumentación enriquece la coenseñanza, y que a su vez la coenseñanza favorece la diversificación de las acciones docentes para promover la argumentación en el aula.
This article seeks to clarify the discourse-analytical use of the terms topos and narrative using a corpus of German language press articles written about a visit of the German federal government to Canada in August 2022. Starting from the dominant topos of ‘shared values’, the question of how this topos was combined with other narratives is discussed, thus illustrating how the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine formed the basis for Germany's vision of an overall energy policy at that time. In addition to the empirical findings, fundamental considerations about the interplay of topoi and narratives are derived from the present study.
Evidenzorientiertes Denken und Handeln von Lehrkräften zeigt sich in der Unterrichtsplanung, wenn Entscheidungen rational begründet werden. Dafür können verschiedene Wissensbestände herangezogen und in didaktische Argumentationen integriert werden. Solche Integrationsprozesse scheinen nur selten spontan zu gelingen. Der Beitrag skizziert, wie Integrationsprozesse beim Schreiben didaktischer Argumentationen aus der Perspektive der Leseforschung zum Umgang mit multiplen Quellen besser verstanden werden könnten. Der Beitrag leitet daraus Hypothesen zur Informationsintegration bei Lehrkräften und Ansätze zur Förderung evidenzorientierter Unterrichtsplanung ab.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.