Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes

Metaxas, Nikolaos; Potari, Despina; Zachariades, Theodossios

doi:10.1007/s10649-016-9701-z

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Revealing and portraying abductions is generally considerably harder as we note above. Both lead to an understanding of different schemes of argumentation (as discussed by Godden and Walton 2007;Knipping and Reid 2013;Metaxas et al 2009Metaxas et al , 2016Metaxas 2015;Aberdein forthcoming;Walton and Reed 2005). In the next section we look at how reconstructing the global argumentation structures of proving processes in classrooms can also lead to understanding different types of argumentation schemes.…”

Section: Functional Reconstruction Of Intermediate Argumentation Streamsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Argumentation Analysis for Early Career Researchers

Knipping

Reid

2019

ICME-13 Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proving processes in mathematics classrooms follow their own peculiar rationale, which raises the question of how to reconstruct and analyse the complex argumentative structures that arise in classroom discussion. In this chapter we describe a method of analysis of argumentation processes in the mathematics class, following the structure of our workshop at the ICME-13 Early Career Researcher Day. The method builds on Toulmin's theory of argumentation (Toulmin 1958) and allows the description of both global argumentation structures and local argumentations. A three stage process is followed: reconstructing the sequencing and meaning of classroom talk; analysing local argumentations and global argumentation structures; and finally comparing these argumentation structures and revealing their rationale. The second stage involves two moves, first analysing local arguments on the basis of Toulmin's functional model of argumentation, and second analysing the global argumentative structure of the proving process. We provide an example of the use of the method to analyse a transcript from a mathematics classroom. Keywords Argumentation Á Argumentation processes Á Argumentation structures Á Proof Á Proving Á Mathematics classrooms Á Model of argumentation 1.1 Toulmin's Functional Model of Argumentation We make use of Toulmin's (1958) functional model of argumentation which has the important characteristic that it was developed to reconstruct arguments in different fields, such as law or medicine. As Toulmin (1958) investigates the functional

show abstract

Section: Functional Reconstruction Of Intermediate Argumentation Streamsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Argumentation Analysis for Early Career Researchers

Knipping

Reid

2019

ICME-13 Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of an argument that includes 4 argument structures can be seen on subject B for postgraduate student and subject number 38 for grade 12 high school student in figure 4 and figure 5. Both results show the similarity with the research by Metaxas.N, et al, 2016 which states that in general, the argumentation in writing and verbal still follow the pattern of claim, warrant, and backing [18]. Other research suggests that university-level learning activities, showing more arguments related to biotechnology content and ethical issues concerning human life and the environment, are due to the basic knowledge of biotechnology has become common subjects, both by students and even by their own teachers [19].…”

Section: Figure 2 the Argument Structure Achieved By Postgraduate Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Quality of Socio-scientific Issue between High School Students and Postgraduate Students about Cancer

Anisa

Widodo

Riandi

2017

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Argumentation is one factor that can help improve critical thinking skills. Arguing means to defend statements with the various data, denials, evidence, and reinforcement that support the statement. The research aimed to capture the quality of argument skills by students in grade 12 high school students and in postgraduate student on social-scientific issues of cancer. Both group subjects are not in the same school or institution, chosen purposively with the subject of 39 high school students of grade 12 in one district of West Java and 13 students of Biology education postgraduate in one of University in West Java -Indonesia. The results of the quality structure of arguments in both subject groups show the same pattern, which is claim -warrant -and ground, with the quality of counterclaim aspects on the postgraduate students look better than grade 12 students. This provides an illustration that the ability in argumentation between students and teachers in the socio-scientific issue of cancer should be evaluate so that the learning process would be more refined in schools.

show abstract

“…Argumentation schemes theory The last framework underlying several approaches to the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts is argumentation schemes theory (Anthony & Kim, 2015;Macagno & Konstantinidou, 2013;Metaxas, Potari, & Zachariades, 2016;Nussbaum, 2003Nussbaum, , 2008). Walton's theory of argumentation schemes (Walton, 1995;Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008) is focused on the analysis and classification of Toulmin's warrants (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984).…”

Section: Second-order Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

Macagno

Rapanta

2019

Studia paedagogica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria.

show abstract

Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes

Cited by 30 publications

References 29 publications

Argumentation Analysis for Early Career Researchers

Argumentation Analysis for Early Career Researchers

Argumentation Quality of Socio-scientific Issue between High School Students and Postgraduate Students about Cancer

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About