Search

The active participation of citizens in scientific research, through citizen science, has been proven successful. However, knowledge on the potential of citizen science within formal chemistry learning, at the conceptual and procedural levels, remains insufficiently explored. We developed a citizen science project – PVC: Perceiving the Value of Chemistry behind water and microplastics – which sought to involve students in monitoring the physicochemical parameters of coastal water quality, through the detection of microplastics in these waters, in addition to the qualitative identification of plastic contaminants on beaches. The project was conducted throughout the 2018/2019 school year and involved 442 middle school students (Key Stage 3 (KS3) aged 12–14, in Portuguese schools) and 9 chemistry teachers, in the northern coastal region of Portugal. The data on learning outcomes was collected through knowledge tests, applied after project conclusion, and was then compared to data collected up to six months later (retention test). In addition, interviews were conducted with participants, and researchers’ field notes were recorded and analyzed. Data analysis suggests the PVC project promoted conceptual chemistry learning related to the analysis of physicochemical water parameters (pH, temperature, turbidity, salinity, nitrate and nitrite concentrations and dissolved oxygen), as well as polymers (polymer types, formation and structure). A positive knowledge retention was registered a few months after the project conclusion. At a process level, participants learned laboratory techniques (sieving, gravity and reduced pressure filtrations and crystallization) and the handling of laboratory materials. Furthermore, teachers recognized that their students’ participation in the PVC project fostered the development of their argumentation skills, as well as their reflexive and critical thinking skills. The ability to communicate ideas and results, along with the development of students’ digital skills, was also mentioned.

Following constructivist paradigms for learning, this article explores the relationships between the components of argumentation competence (knowledge, behavior and attitude), their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition, and the differences in argumentation behavior between successful and less-successful students. An exploratory study, with a pre- and post-test design, in an authentic, non-scaffolded, online learning environment was conducted. Contrary to our expectations, no significant relationships between the components of argumentation competence were found. Nevertheless, a significant relationship between argumentation behavior and domain-specific knowledge acquisition was found. Moreover, results suggested that the capacity of students to transfer argumentation behavior to similar argumentation tasks can be related to students’ domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Finally, successful students in terms of domain-specific knowledge acquisition scored higher with regard to their argumentation behavior than less-successful students. These findings are discussed followed by theoretical and practical implications and suggestion for future work.

The environment around general-purpose service robots has a dynamic nature. Accordingly, even the robot's programmer cannot predict all the possible external failures which the robot may confront. This research proposes an online incremental learning method that can be further used to autonomously handle external failures originating from a change in the environment. Existing research typically offers special-purpose solutions. Furthermore, the current incremental online learning algorithms can not generalize well with just a few observations. In contrast, our method extracts a set of hypotheses, which can then be used for finding the best recovery behavior at each failure state. The proposed argumentation-based online incremental learning approach uses an abstract and bipolar argumentation framework to extract the most relevant hypotheses and model the defeasibility relation between them. This leads to a novel online incremental learning approach that overcomes the addressed problems and can be used in different domains including robotic applications. We have compared our proposed approach with state-of-the-art online incremental learning approaches and an approximation-based reinforcement learning method. The experimental results show that our approach learns more quickly with a lower number of observations and also has higher final precision than the other methods.

In this paper, we propose an argumentation formalism that allows for both deductive and abductive argumentation, where ‘deduction’ is used as an umbrella term for both defeasible and strict ‘forward’ inference. Our formalism is based on an extended version of our previously proposed information graph (IG) formalism, which provides a precise account of the interplay between deductive and abductive inference and causal and evidential information. In the current version, we consider additional types of information such as abstractions which allow domain experts to be more expressive in stating their knowledge, where we identify and impose constraints on the types of inferences that may be performed with the different types of information. A new notion of attack is defined that captures a crucial aspect of abductive reasoning, namely that of competition between abductively inferred alternative explanations. Our argumentation formalism generates an abstract argumentation framework and thus allows arguments to be formally evaluated. We prove that instantiations of our argumentation formalism satisfy key rationality postulates.

Previous research on student argumentation in the chemistry laboratory has emphasized the evaluation of argument quality or the characterization of argument structure (i.e., claims, evidence, rationale). In spite of this progress, little is known about the impact of the wide array of factors that impact students’ argumentation in the undergraduate laboratory. Building on our previous work involving activity framing, we analyzed student arguments produced following eight experiments that comprise the first semester of a college organic chemistry laboratory. Arguments were characterized by a set of domain-general coding categories that were related to the nature and quality of student arguments. Further, we explored the impact of four laboratory factors on the quality of arguments produced across the eight experiments in the laboratory curriculum. Our analysis revealed no trends on the effect of experiment order or general type on the quality of student arguments; however, the amount and types of data sources as well as the level of scaffolding provided both had an impact on student argument quality. Although the undergraduate laboratory offers a ripe opportunity for students to engage in argument from evidence, laboratory activity involves a complex web of components each with the potential to affect productive and quality sensemaking. Our findings highlight the importance of explicit consideration of various laboratory factors and their impact on how students express their chemical reasoning through written argumentation.

Building scientific arguments is a central ability for all scientists regardless of their specific domain. In organic chemistry, building arguments is a necessary skill to estimate reaction processes in consideration of the reactivities of reaction centres or the chemical and physical properties. Moreover, building arguments for multiple reaction pathways might help students overcome the tendency toward one-reason decision-making and offer them an authentic perspective on organic processes. Reasoning about multiple alternative organic reaction pathways requires students to build arguments and then judge and weigh the plausibility of these pathways. However, students often struggle to build strong arguments and use scientific principles appropriately to justify their claims. In the present study, the argumentation patterns of 29 chemistry majors students were analysed using a simplified version of Toulmin's argumentation model (claim–evidence–reasoning). The students solved various tasks related to alternative reaction pathways of a substitution reaction. They supported their claims with evidence and justified the evidence through reasoning. We investigated (a) the extent to which the students use evidence and reasoning in their argumentation (referred to as their argumentation approach), (b) how students with different argumentation approaches rationalised changes in their initial claims, and (c) how students used reasoning to justify their arguments. The results indicate that students need further support to appropriately use evidence and reasoning and to apply conceptual knowledge to build well-grounded arguments.

The article is devoted to legal argumentation, namely to its research by dialectical approach. The aim of the article is to determine characteristic features of dialectical approach to legal argumentation. Dialectical approach to the research of legal argumentation should include philosophical, theoretical, empirical components. Philosophical component of legal argumentation research consists in the critical conception of rationality i.e. the philosophical axiomatic idea about rationality of legal argumentation, which is systematically tested within discourse or critical discussion. Dialectical theoretical model of legal argumentation ensures mutual acceptability of legal argumentation by the parties. Dialectical approach deals with legal argumentation mainly in the “context of justification.” Dialectical approach to legal arguing implies specific standard of soundness of the argumentation – acceptability standard. Empirical component of legal argumentation includes reconstruction of argumentation and its weighting (analytic component) as well as analysis of particular legal reasoning (practical component). Dialectical approach highlights hermeneutical nature of legal reasoning. Dialectical approach to legal argumentation lets us assume some ontological issues concerning legal argumentation. Legal argumentation is considered as the form of rational communication of particular persons to reach mutual acceptability of legally important conclusions within the procedure of discussion. Legal argumentation is the result of such impact embodied in acceptability of legally binding issues within the procedure of rational discussion.

The main theme of the article is ideal dimension of law. Author argue for a dual nature thesis – which contends that law necessarily comprises both a real or factual dimension and an ideal or critical dimension – and demonstrates how the ideal dimension (which refers primarily to moral correctness) implies the truth of non-positivism. The key provisions of the conception represented in article are substantiated in a polemic with other well-known representative of non-positivism – John Finnis. Particular attention is paid to determine relation between the real and ideal dimensions of law, which involves answering five questions. First, is there an outermost border of law? Second, is legal argumentation based exclusively on authoritative reasons or does it also include non-authoritative reasons? Third, what is the relation between human rights and legal systems? Forth, is democracy to be understood exclusively as a decision procedure or also as a form of discourse? Fifth, do legal system comprise only rules expressing a real “ought” or also principles expressing an “ideal ought”? These five questions are answered by the following five theses: the first with the Radbruch formula; he second with the special case thesis; the third with the thesis that constitutional rights are to be understood as attempts to positivize human rights; the fourth with the deliberative model of democracy; and the fifth with principles theory. All five theses turn on the same point: the claim to correctness.

This paper examines some examples (taken from research conducted over the years) that show students’ linguistic attitudes in geometry tasks. The examples are framed within the Theory of Objectification with reference to the notion of sensuous cognition, semiotic means of objectification and levels of generality. We show the struggle students live, at higher levels of generality, in intertwining natural language, specific language and the spontaneous use of geometrical figures, bound to perception and kinaesthetic activity. Within the networking paradigm, we coordinate the Theory of Objectification and Duval’s semio-cognitive approach to frame the interplay between the ideal and the material that occurs in geometrical argumentations and proofs.

The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of argumentation-based inquiry approach (ABI) and STEM-supported ABI approach on students’ academic achievement, scientific creativity and reflective thinking skills for problem solving, and to determine students' views about the process. Explanatory sequential design, one of the mixed research methods, was used in the study. A total of 41students (N=20 boys, n=21 girls) studying in the seventh grade of a secondary school in north-east Turkey constitute the study group. In the study, the two classes that the same teacher attended was randomly determined where one was an ABI group (N=21) and the other a STEM-supported ABI group (N=20). The groups worked with the same teacher throughout the study. In the quantitative dimension of the study, Academic Achievement Test, Reflective Thinking Scale for Problem Solving, and Scientific Creativity Scale was used, while semi-structured interview form was used in the qualitative dimension. Independent Groups T Test and ANCOVA were applied in the analysis of quantitative data. Content analysis was performed in the analysis of qualitative data. In the research, it was concluded that students' reflective thinking skills for problem solving, scientific creativity and academic success are more developed in applications made by integrating STEM into the ABI approach.

Simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation frameworks are a general setting for structured argumentation, providing a robust approach to reasoning with arguments and counter-arguments. In this paper we extend these frameworks with priorities and introduce some new results concerning the Dung's semantics of the resulting formalisms.

The aim of this study is to shed light on the learnability regarding usages of three English articles (a, the and zero) among Chinese EFL learners. To this end, three tasks were administered in a pool of 107 participants to examine the extent to which learners can accurately use articles across different semantic contexts as well as the effects of varying proficiency level and discourse mode on learners' article decisions. The results showed that both groups (Group Low and Medium) in this study were likely to commit few errors with respect to article usages that target definiteness and specificity than those in zero-licensing contexts. In addition, inconsistent findings were observed regarding the effect of proficiency level on the variability in learners' article choices. Though significant differences were observed between two discourse modes (exposition and argumentation), it is claimed that NP-licensing contexts rather than shift of discourse mode play a major role in explaining the variances in the accurate use of articles. Furthermore, the findings in the present study will also inspire pedagogical implications.

Este trabalho objetiva analisar processos de elaborações argumentativa por alunos de Ensino Médio, em um debate motivado por um estudo de caso sobre a dilemática dos usos dos suplementos alimentares. A partir do estudo da gênese e desenvolvimento da argumentação, identificamos e analisamos em que medida a intervenção pedagógica em aulas de Química, por meio do ensino de conceitos, apoia a complexificação de seus discursos relativos a processos alimentares e cuidados com a saúde na busca de um corpo socialmente idealizado. Como resultado e contribuições para a área de ensino, defendemos a essencialidade da prática argumentativa heterogênea – não como uma ação pontual ou fragmentada – mas como uma cultura fundamental a ser estabelecida no processo de ensino.

Practical learning activities carried out in remote situations during the COVID-19 pandemic triggered vocational students to take advantage of the surrounding environment as a learning resource. The process also determines how their HOTS and HOTSEP are. A learning model that can accommodate the skills is needed, such as ITA (Identify problems–Think and write–Analysis and argumentation) model. This learning model utilizes environmental issues intending to guide students to understand the environment through an online platform. This study aimed to analyze the HOTS and HOTSEP of vocational students, as the basis for developing a new learning model. The research sample consisted of 61 students with 29 male students and 32 female students. The sample was selected by simple random sampling. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. The results showed that the total scores of students' HOTS (17.14) and HOTSEP (18.74) were suggested as very low categories. Thus, the students' skills need to improve actively with innovative learning models, such as the application of the ITA model.

La presente investigación parte de un proceso de intervención en las aulas de formación del profesorado que pretende generar un acercamiento a las posibilidades educativas del arte LGTB, cuyo objetivo consiste en reflexionar sobre la oportunidad de utilizar piezas ar-tísticas, incorporando cuestiones como la diversidad sexual y de género, fomentando así la superación del odio, la homofobia y la transfobia. Como metodología se plantea un estu-dio de caso en el que se analiza un taller impartido a dos grupos de la Facultat de Magisteri de la Universitat de València, incorporando la Investigación Educativa Basada en Artes. La recogida de datos se lleva a cabo durante la práctica docente, usando instrumentos de evaluación como diagnósticos, grupos focales y observación participante, fomentando el debate como fuente de argumentación al tratar cuestiones de diversidad sexual. Como resultado destaca la buena acogida de la temática por parte del alumnado, quienes reco-nocen haber superado estereotipos y tabús convencionales, propiciando con ello entornos inclusivos, lo cual repercute en la formación de docentes desde el respeto a la diversidad y la educación inclusiva. Como discusión final, expresar la conveniencia de asumir la falta de atención curricular hacia estas cuestiones. This research offers an intervention process in teacher training classrooms, generating an approach to the educational possibilities of LGTB art. The objective is reflecting the opportunity to use pieces of art, incorporating issues such as gender and sexual diver - sity, promoting the overcoming of hatred, homophobia and transphobia. As a method- ology, a case study is presented, analyzing a workshop given to two groups of students at the Faculty of Magisteri of the University of Valencia, also incorporating Arts-Based Educational Research. Data collection is carried out during teaching practice, using assessment instruments such as diagnoses, focus groups and participant observation, fostering debate as a source of argumentation when dealing with issues of sexual di- versity. As a result, we highlight the good reception of the subject by the students, who acknowledge having overcome conventional stereotypes and taboos, thereby promot- ing inclusive environments. All this improves teacher training by increasing respect for diversity and inclusive education. As a final discussion, it is convenient to assume the lack of curricular attention to these issues.

Socially-relevant and controversial topics, such as the climate crisis, are subject to differences in the explanations that scientists and the public find plausible. Scaffolds can help students be ...

This paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words (VBWs), and one of the goals of this paper is to build a methodological tool for finding and classifying these VBWs (with a focus on evaluative adjectives). Our study echoes the importance of “cultural keywords” (as reported by Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, 1997) in argument (as reported by Rigotti & Rocci, Argumentation in practice, 2005), but is rather based on a German approach developed by (as reported by Dieckmann, Sprache in der Politik: Einführung in die Pragmatik und Semantik der politischen, 1975), (as reported by Strauss and Zifonun, Der politische Wortschatz, 1986), and (as reported by Girnth, Sprache und Sprachverwendung in der Politik: Eine Einführung in die linguistische Analyse öffentlich-politischer Kommunikation, 2015) about “Miranda” and “Anti-Miranda” words that is expanded and refined here. In particular, our study tries to understand why some statements, fueled by appreciative (Tseronis, 2014) or evaluative adjectives, have such rhetorical effects on a pragmatic level in the particular context of a vote on the Swiss popular initiative called “for more affordable housing”. This context is fruitful since two parties offer reasons for two opposing policy claims: namely, to accept or to reject an initiative. When one party uses arguments containing such universally unassailable adjectival groups to defend a “yes” vote (in our example, pleading for more affordable housing rents), the opposing party cannot use a symmetrical antonym while pleading for the “no” vote. The methodological tool that is proposed here could shed light on the use of certain rhetorical and referential strategies in conflicting policy proposition contexts.

The paper presents an analysis of the cultural embeddedness of arguments, raised as a part of the Bulgarian debate about the ratification of the Istanbul convention. The method I employed was the localization procedure of Generalized Argumentation theory. Through a qualitative analysis of empirical argumentation data, I identified arguments in favour of or against the ratification of the Istanbul convention. Information about the cultural background against which these arguments were raised, i.e. about Bulgarian culture, was gathered from the part of the ninth wave of the European Social Survey that used the Portrait Value Questionnaire—an instrument for measuring human values, based on Schwartz’s theory of human values. By establishing a certain relationship between the arguments and the cultural background information, I came to the conclusion that the debate between the proponents and the opponents of the ratification represented a conflict between the basic values of universalism and tradition, and more particularly, between the lower-order values of equality and respect for tradition.

Though we have advocated explicit argumentation instruction in science classes for decades, daily instructions are still found insufficient in improving students’ argumentation competence. It is therefore important to explore effective instructional strategies through classroom research. This paper compares instructional strategies for classroom argumentation. We report on a quasi-experiment conducted with tenth-grade students (n = 92) that compares adversarial and parallel argumentation designs for the topic genetic inheritance, an inquiry-based socio-scientific issue (SSI) unit. The instruction was conducted through the online platform, Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE). In the parallel design, student dyads were assigned to the same initial stances and were asked to change to multiple perspectives together, while in the adversarial design, students were assigned to opposite stances, and a debate was launched between the two sides. Students’ overall argumentation performance improved significantly in both cases, yet the progress was greater in terms of counterarguments for students in the parallel design. Such findings highlight the value of parallel thinking in developing students’ argumentation competence, especially in producing counterarguments. Suggestions on instructional design for scientific argumentation activities are proposed accordingly.

There are many benefits of using argumentation-based techniques in multi-agent systems, as clearly shown in the literature. Such benefits come not only from the expressiveness that argumentation-based techniques bring to agent communication but also from the reasoning and decision-making capabilities under conditions of conflicting and uncertain information that argumentation enables for autonomous agents. When developing multi-agent applications in which argumentation will be used to improve agent communication and reasoning, argumentation schemes (reasoning patterns for argumentation) are useful in addressing the requirements of the application domain in regards to argumentation (e.g., defining the scope in which argumentation will be used by agents in that particular application). In this work, we propose an argumentation framework that takes into account the particular structure of argumentation schemes at its core. This paper formally defines such a framework and experimentally evaluates its implementation for both argumentation-based reasoning and dialogues.

Argumentation schemes have played a key role in our research projects on computational models of natural argument over the last decade. The catalogue of schemes in Walton, Reed and Macagno’s 2008 book, Argumentation Schemes, served as our starting point for analysis of the naturally occurring arguments in written text, i.e., text in different genres having different types of author, audience, and subject domain (genetics, international relations, environmental science policy, AI ethics), for different argument goals, and for different possible future applications. We would often first attempt to analyze the arguments in our corpora in terms of those schemes, then adapt schemes as needed for the goals of the project, and in some cases implement them for use in computational models. Among computational researchers, the main interest in argumentation schemes has been for use in argument mining by applying machine learning methods to existing argument corpora. In contrast, a primary goal of our research has been to learn more about written arguments themselves in various contemporary fields. Our approach has been to manually analyze semantics, discourse structure, argumentation, and rhetoric in texts. Another goal has been to create sharable digital corpora containing the results of our studies. Our approach has been to define argument schemes for use by human corpus annotators or for use in logic programs for argument mining. The third goal is to design useful computer applications based upon our studies, such as argument diagramming systems that provide argument schemes as building blocks. This paper describes each of the various projects: the methods, the argument schemes that were identified, and how they were used. Then a synthesis of the results is given with a discussion of open issues.

Socratic irony can be understood independently of the immortal heroics of Plato’s Socrates. We need a systematic account and criticism of it both as a debate-winning strategy of argumentation and teaching method. The Speaker introduces an issue pretending to be at a lower intellectual level than her co-debaters, or Participants. An Audience looks over and evaluates the results. How is it possible that the Speaker like Socrates is, consistently, in the winning position? The situation is ironic because the Participants fight from a losing position but realize it too late. Socratic irony compares with divine irony: divine irony is a subtype of Socratic irony since you lose when you challenge gods. Socratic irony is also, prima facie, a subtype of dramatic irony when the Audience knows more than the Participants on the stage.We must distinguish between the ideal and realistic elements of Socratic Irony. The very idea of Socratic irony looks idealized, or it is an ideal case, which explains the Speaker’s consistently winning position. In real life, the debate must be rigged, or the Dutch Book argument applies to the Participants, if the Speaker is so successful.

The Requirements Engineering (RE) process starts with initial requirements elicited from stakeholders--however conflicting, unattainable, incomplete and ambiguous--and successively refines them until a consistent, complete, valid, and unambiguous specification is reached. This is achieved by balancing stakeholders' viewpoints and preferences to reach compromises through negotiation. Several frameworks have been developed to support this process in a structured way, such as KAOS, i*, and RationalGLR. However, none provides the means to model the dialectic negotiation inherent to the RE process, so that the derivation of specifications from requirements is fully explicit and traceable. To address this gap, we propose CaRE, a refinement calculus for requirements engineering based on argumentation theory. CaRE casts the RE refinement problem as an iterative argument between all relevant stakeholders, who point out defects (ambiguity, incompleteness, etc.) of existing requirements, and then propose suitable refinements to address them, thereby leading to the construction of a refinement graph. This graph is then a conceptual model of the RE process. The semantics of refinement graphs is provided using Argumentation Theory, enabling reasoning over the RE process and the automatic computation of software specifications. An alternate semantics is also presented based on abduction and using Horn Theory. The application of CaRE is showcased with an extensive example from the railway domain, and a prototype tool for identifying specifications in a refinement graph is presented.

Since at least the 1980s, the role of adversariality in argumentation has been extensively discussed within different domains. Prima facie, there seem to be two extreme positions on this issue: argumentation should (ideally at least) never be adversarial, as we should always aim for cooperative argumentative engagement; argumentation should be and in fact is always adversarial, given that adversariality (when suitably conceptualized) is an intrinsic property of argumentation. I here defend the view that specific instances of argumentation are (and should be) adversarial or cooperative to different degrees. What determines whether an argumentative situation should be primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative are contextual features and background conditions external to the argumentative situation itself, in particular the extent to which the parties involved have prior conflicting or else convergent interests. To further develop this claim, I consider three teloi that are frequently associated with argumentation: the epistemic telos, the consensus-building telos, and the conflict management telos. I start with a brief discussion of the concepts of adversariality, cooperation, and conflict in general. I then sketch the main lines of the debates in the recent literature on adversariality in argumentation. Next, I discuss the three teloi of argumentation listed above in turn, emphasizing the roles of adversariality and cooperation for each of them.

Discourse structure annotation aims at analysing how discourse units (e.g. sentences or clauses) relate to each other and what roles they play in the overall discourse. Several annotation tools for discourse structure have been developed. However, they often only support specific annotation schemes, making their usage limited to new schemes. This article presents TIARA 2.0, an annotation tool for discourse structure and text improvement. Departing from our specific needs, we extend an existing tool to accommodate four levels of annotation: discourse structure, argumentative structure, sentence rearrangement and content alteration. The latter two are particularly unique compared to existing tools. TIARA is implemented on standard web technologies and can be easily customised. It deals with the visual complexity during the annotation process by systematically simplifying the layout and by offering interactive visualisation, including clutter-reducing features and dual-view display. TIARA’s text-view allows annotators to focus on the analysis of logical sequencing between sentences. The tree-view allows them to review their analysis in terms of the overall discourse structure. Apart from being an annotation tool, it is also designed to be useful for educational purposes in the teaching of argumentation; this gives it an edge over other existing tools.