Capturing deliberative argument: An analytic coding scheme for studying argumentative dialogue and its benefits for learning

Felton, Mark; Crowell, Amanda; García-Milà, Mercè; Villarroel, Constanza

doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100350

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dialogue can also elicit adversarial behaviors that undermine the potential benefits of two-way communication. Thus, under some conditions, the competitive epistemic goals of persuasion can trigger competitive interpersonal goals that foreclose transactive dialogue (Asterhan, 2013;Felton et al, 2019). When speakers confuse the two goals, they tend to repeat themselves without elaborating their arguments, disagree without explaining why, and advance a barrage of arguments without addressing each other's counterarguments (Felton et al, 2015b).…”

Section: Types and Goals Of Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, two-way communication can also trigger collaborative interpersonal goals that undermine dialogue. Several studies suggest that face threat can lead speakers to avoid critical discussion (See, e.g., Asterhan, 2013;Felton et al, 2019). The phenomenon may be particularly problematic when speakers encounter disagreement unexpectedly during in-group dialogue.…”

Section: Types and Goals Of Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many urgent problems that societies currently face—from climate change to a global pandemic—require citizens to engage with scientific information as members of democratic societies as well as to solve problems in their personal lives. Most often, to solve their epistemic aims (aims directed at achieving knowledge and understanding) regarding such socio-scientific issues, individuals search for information online, where there exists a multitude of possibly relevant and highly interconnected sources of different perspectives, sometimes providing conflicting information. The paper provides a review of the literature aimed at identifying (a) constraints and affordances that scientific knowledge and the online information environment entail and (b) individuals' cognitive and motivational processes that have been found to hinder, or conversely, support practices of engagement (such as critical information evaluation or two-sided dialogue). Doing this, a conceptual framework for understanding and fostering what we call online engagement with scientific information is introduced, which is conceived as consisting of individual engagement (engaging on one's own in the search, selection, evaluation, and integration of information) and dialogic engagement (engaging in discourse with others to interpret, articulate and critically examine scientific information). In turn, this paper identifies individual and contextual conditions for individuals' goal-directed and effortful online engagement with scientific information.

show abstract

Section: Types and Goals Of Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Types and Goals Of Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this sort of deliberation, each party attempts to rationally persuade the other parties by them seeing the quality of the reasons (not by, say, manipulating or bargaining with them). So argumentative deliberation is here to be understood as the interpersonal practice that involves the production and evaluation of epistemic reasons in favour and against some claim and its consequent possible revision (Andrews, 2010;Asterhan and Schwarz, 2016;Bova, 2017;Felton et al, 2019;Govier, 2010;Leitão, 2000;Schwartz and Baker, 2017).…”

Section: Argumentative Deliberation and Epistemic Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here I'll focus on this phenomenon, which I'll present below ( §2), but let me make clear that other researchers have used different terms to refer to it, including 'collaborative reasoning' and 'deliberative argumentation' (cf. Asterhan and Schwarz, 2016;Chinn et al, 2001;Felton et al, 2019). The term choice is to deliberately distance myself from possible wider theoretical connotations that the other ones might be associated with.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentative Deliberation and the Development of Intellectual Humility and Autonomy in the Classroom

Brasi

2020

cogency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is argued that argumentative deliberation, which involves the interpersonal exchange and evaluation of reasons and counter-reasons, is crucial for the generation of epistemic goods given that it helps us eradicate errors and neutralise biases. However, to reap argumentative deliberation’s epistemic benefits, the deliberators need to instantiate a certain intellectual character: in particular, they need to be intellectually humble and autonomous. Given that, it is argued that the educational system should foster the development of the intellectual virtues of humility and autonomy. Moreover, some pedagogical strategies and practices as to how this can be achieved in the classroom are offered.

show abstract

“…A plethora of empirical studies (e.g. Felton et al, 2019; Greco et al, 2018) have been conducted recently, and the volume at hand sheds new theoretical light on the discourse studies perspective on argumentative discourse by treating argumentation as a social, intersubjective activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Book review: Frans H van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (eds), From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild: A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory

Sun

2020

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capturing deliberative argument: An analytic coding scheme for studying argumentative dialogue and its benefits for learning

Cited by 22 publications

References 18 publications

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

Argumentative Deliberation and the Development of Intellectual Humility and Autonomy in the Classroom

Book review: Frans H van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (eds), From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild: A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About