Search

This microgenetic case study explores how an undergraduate student (Nolan) in a second-year seminar mastered an argument weighing scheme and used it to organize his writing. The students in this seminar completed argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) prior to discussing controversial issues. Students also completed preessays and postessays on a different topic without using AVDs. Through the AVDs, students were provided with critical, evaluative questions related to designing solutions and weighing arguments against counterarguments. In separate work, we report that the intervention was effective in increasing the number of refutations related to the critical questions (Nussbaum & Dove, 2018). Nolan showed particularly strong growth, and this case study analyzes his discourse to generate qualitative insights and hypotheses into his development. Using the conceptual framework of argument-counterargument integration (Nussbaum, 2008b), we analyzed Nolan’s written artifacts and discussions to better understand how his proficiency with using the argument scheme developed over time. Our results suggest that Nolan initially displayed piecemeal use of the scheme, but over time, Nolan learned to articulate general principles and to integrate these with specific points regarding benefits and costs, as well as with solution-oriented design statements that further reduced disadvantages. Use of the scheme spontaneously transferred to a novel topic. Extensive engagement in ethical discussions, along with studying ethical theory and answering critical questions on AVDs, may have contributed to his development. Theoretical and practical implications related to teaching argumentative writing in conjunction with oral discourse are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) more...

This study examined a new prewriting tool, argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs), which are used to write reflective opinion essays. AVDs are based on the theoretical concept of argument-counterargument integration, which involves evaluating and integrating both sides of an issue before developing a final conclusion on a controversial question. In a test of the effectiveness of AVDs, 45 undergraduates at a large, southwestern university were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Both groups wrote 4 opinion essays over a 4-week period. The experimental group also received training on using the AVDs, including instruction on criteria for weighing arguments. Results indicated that AVD training was effective in enhancing argument-counterargument integration. Furthermore, examination of integration strategies used by participants revealed a new strategy, minimization, which was not previously part of E. M. Nussbaum and G. Schraw's (2007) argument-counterargument integration framework. Minimization involves curtailing the importance or extensiveness of a problem or advantage as a heuristic shortcut for weighing advantages and disadvantages. The role of critical questions and argumentation schemata in argument-counterargument integration is discussed. more...

The authors investigated ways of encouraging students to consider more counterarguments when writing argumentative texts. One hundred eighty-four undergraduates wrote essays on TV violence. In Experiment 1, students given specific goals generated more counterarguments and rebuttals than controls. In Experiment 2, some participants were provided with a text outlining arguments/counterarguments; some were also asked to write a persuasive letter. Prior attitudes toward the topic were also measured. Persuasion instructions negatively affected and text (without persuasion instructions) positively affected counterargumentation and the overall quality of arguments. Text was only effective, however, for students with less extreme prior attitudes. The danger of using persuasion goals and the advantages of using more specific goals (with text) are discussed. more...