Improving Students' Evaluation of Informal Arguments

Abstract

Evaluating the structural quality of arguments is a skill important to students’ ability to comprehend the arguments of others and produce their own. The authors examined college and high school students’ ability to evaluate the quality of 2-clause (claim-reason) arguments and tested a tutorial to improve this ability. These experiments indicated that college and high school students had difficulty evaluating arguments on the basis of their quality. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that a tutorial explaining skills important to overall argument evaluation increased performance but that immediate feedback during training was necessary for teaching students to evaluate the claim-reason connection. Using a Web-based version of the tutorial, Experiment 3 extended this finding to the performance of high-school students. The study suggests that teaching the structure of an argument and teaching students to pay attention to the precise message of the claim can improve argument evaluation.

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

“…Some evidence has shown that even short-term interventions can be effective in improving argument evaluation skills in students (e.g., Hefter et al, 2014Hefter et al, , 2015. For example, Larson et al (2009) found that a tutorial explaining general skills associated with successful argument evaluation to high school and college students led to an increased performance when immediate feedback was provided during training. Including explicit refutations in science text seems to be a promising approach to change inaccurate prior misconceptions in university students (Braasch, Goldman, & Wiley, 2013).…”

“…Similar to the belief bias in the processing of deductive arguments, research on the evaluation of informal arguments has shown that lay readers tend to focus on the truthfulness of the claim (acceptability) but neglect the relevance of the data for the conclusion (relevancy) or relevant alternatives (sufficiency). For example, in a study by Larson, Britt, and Kurby (2009), college and high school students struggled with the evaluation of the quality of two-clause (claim, datum) arguments. Teaching the structure of arguments and providing immediate feedback were necessary to encourage assertion-based judgements and to shift attention to the internal consistency of arguments.…”

The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in the Comprehension of Multiple Expository Texts: Toward an Integrated Model

“…Students who are given primary documents and asked to construct arguments may learn more than those asked to construct a situations model organized around a summary or narrative (Wiley & Voss, 1999). However, arguments in science are particularly challenging for students and special supports may be needed for some students (Duschl & Osborne, 2002;Forman, Larreamendy-Joerns, Stein, & Brown, 1998;Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodrigues, & Duschl, 2000;Kelly, Druker, & Chen, 1998;Kuhn, 1993;A. Larson, Britt, & Kurby, 2009;Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004;Takao & Kelly, 2003).…”

Impact of Peer Assessment Activities on High School Student's Argumentation in Argument-Based Inquiry

“…특히, 과학적 논의과정을 지원하기 위해 설계된 교수전략에서도 탐구 과정과 결과에 대해 평가하고 비판할 수 있는 기회를 학생들에게 제공함으로써 논의 능력을 향상시킬 수 있다 (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000;Duschl & Osborne, 2002;Kuhn & Reiser, 2006). 학생들은 동료에게 즉각적인 피드백을 제공하면서 논의의 질을 판단하는 능력을 향상시킬 수 있으며 (Larson, Britt, & Kurby, 2009), 학습 내용에 대해 서로 의견을 교환하는 일련의 동료평 가 활동을 통해 협력학습을 격려할 수 있다 (Spiller, 2009). 즉, 동료평 가 활동은 학습에서 학생들의 참여 문화를 촉진시키는 중요한 요소이 다 (Kollar & Fischer, 2012 (Nam et al, 2008).…”