Zeitschrift Für Padagogische Psychologie 30:121-132 (2016)
AbstractThis study examines how evidence is used differently in argumentative discourse compared to individual arguments. Applying a 1×2 crossover study design, 37 secondary school students were asked either to discuss a social issue with their partner before individually writing an essay outlining their opinion or, vice versa, first to discuss and then to write. As background information, they were provided with pieces of evidence with different levels of quality. Dialogs and essays were analyzed regarding (a) the type of evidence and (b) the way evidence was used. Results showed that in their essays students referred more often to the pieces of evidence provided to them (shared evidence). In contrast, they used evidence more often to address the opposing viewpoint in dialogs by incorporating it in a more elaborated (clearer) line of reasoning. Findings suggest that dialogues are a more effective tool than individual writing production, and the study provides first hints regarding how to design curricula that will encourage students to use evidence in a more sophisticated way in their argumentation.
Similar books and articles
The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum .F. Macagno & D. Walton - 2007 - Argumentation 28 (3):203-228.
What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum? Reasons, Threats, and Logical Norms.Robert H. Kimball - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (1):89-100.
The Fallacy of Treating the Ad Baculum as a Fallacy.Don S. Levi - 1999 - Informal Logic 19 (2).
Speech Acts and Indirect Threats in Ad Baculum Arguments. A Reply to Budzynska and Witek: Comment To: Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):317-324.
Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum.Katarzyna Budzynska & Maciej Witek - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):301-315.
A Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Baculum Fallacy.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):276-310.
Being Unreasonable: Perelman and the Problem of Fallacies. [REVIEW]James Crosswhite - 1993 - Argumentation 7 (4):385-402.
Which of the Fallacies Are Fallacies of Relevance?Douglas N. Walton - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):237-250.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Argument Relevance and Structure. Assessing and Developing Students’ Uses of Evidence.Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - International Journal of Educational Research 79:180–194.
Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):329-350.
The Role of Evidence in Chronic Care Decision-Making.Fabrizio Macagno & Sarah Bigi - 2021 - Topoi 40 (2):343-358.
Analizzare l’argomentazione sui social media. Il caso dei tweet di Salvini.Fabrizio Macagno - 2019 - Sistemi Intelligenti 3 (31):601-632.
In Context: Giving Contextualization its Rightful Place in the Study of Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):141-161.
References found in this work
Emotive Language in Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2014 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.Rosalind Driver, Paul Newton & Jonathan Osborne - 2000 - Science Education 84 (3):287-312.