The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse

In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on the argumentative task goal. In dispute the goal is to defend a conclusion by undermining alternatives, whereas in deliberation the goal is to arrive at a conclusion by contrasting alternatives. In th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Garcia-Milà, Mercè, Gilabert, Sandra, Erduran, Sibel, Felton, Mark
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión aceptada para publicación
Fecha de publicación:2013
País:España
Institución:Universidad de Barcelona
Repositorio:Dipòsit Digital de la UB
OAI Identifier:oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/105142
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/2445/105142
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Argumentació (Lingüística)
Persuasió (Psicologia)
Raonament (Psicologia)
Argumentation (Linguistics)
Persuasion (Psychology)
Reasoning (Psychology)
id ES_6cefef3df271c8c433a2dae8a034c9bf
oai_identifier_str oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/105142
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourseGarcia-Milà, MercèGilabert, SandraErduran, SibelFelton, MarkArgumentació (Lingüística)Persuasió (Psicologia)Raonament (Psicologia)Argumentation (Linguistics)Persuasion (Psychology)Reasoning (Psychology)In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on the argumentative task goal. In dispute the goal is to defend a conclusion by undermining alternatives, whereas in deliberation the goal is to arrive at a conclusion by contrasting alternatives. In this study, we examine the impact of these tasks goals on the quality of argumentative discourse. Sixty-five junior high school students were organized into dyads to discuss sources of energy. Dyads were formed by members who had differing viewpoints and were distributed to one of two conditions: 31 dyads were asked to discuss with the goal to persuade the partner, and 34 were asked to reach consensus. Argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on Toulmin (1958). Eleven different argumentative structures resulted from the combination of Toulmin's basic elements. Students in the consensus group scored significantly higher than students in the persuasion group in 5/6 argumentative structures that included rebuttals. The major implication of the present work is that, similar to Mercer's (2000) claim about types of classroom conversation, not all classroom argumentation tasks promote scientific reasoning equally.Wiley2013info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/2445/105142Articles publicats en revistes (Cognició, Desenvolupament i Psicologia de l'Educació)reponame:Dipòsit Digital de la UBinstname:Universidad de BarcelonaInglésVersió postprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057Science Education, 2013, vol. 97, num. 4, p. 497-523https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057(c) Wiley, 2013info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/1051422026-05-27T06:46:51Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
title The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
spellingShingle The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
Garcia-Milà, Mercè
Argumentació (Lingüística)
Persuasió (Psicologia)
Raonament (Psicologia)
Argumentation (Linguistics)
Persuasion (Psychology)
Reasoning (Psychology)
title_short The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
title_full The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
title_fullStr The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
title_full_unstemmed The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
title_sort The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Garcia-Milà, Mercè
Gilabert, Sandra
Erduran, Sibel
Felton, Mark
author Garcia-Milà, Mercè
author_facet Garcia-Milà, Mercè
Gilabert, Sandra
Erduran, Sibel
Felton, Mark
author_role author
author2 Gilabert, Sandra
Erduran, Sibel
Felton, Mark
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Argumentació (Lingüística)
Persuasió (Psicologia)
Raonament (Psicologia)
Argumentation (Linguistics)
Persuasion (Psychology)
Reasoning (Psychology)
topic Argumentació (Lingüística)
Persuasió (Psicologia)
Raonament (Psicologia)
Argumentation (Linguistics)
Persuasion (Psychology)
Reasoning (Psychology)
description In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on the argumentative task goal. In dispute the goal is to defend a conclusion by undermining alternatives, whereas in deliberation the goal is to arrive at a conclusion by contrasting alternatives. In this study, we examine the impact of these tasks goals on the quality of argumentative discourse. Sixty-five junior high school students were organized into dyads to discuss sources of energy. Dyads were formed by members who had differing viewpoints and were distributed to one of two conditions: 31 dyads were asked to discuss with the goal to persuade the partner, and 34 were asked to reach consensus. Argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on Toulmin (1958). Eleven different argumentative structures resulted from the combination of Toulmin's basic elements. Students in the consensus group scored significantly higher than students in the persuasion group in 5/6 argumentative structures that included rebuttals. The major implication of the present work is that, similar to Mercer's (2000) claim about types of classroom conversation, not all classroom argumentation tasks promote scientific reasoning equally.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
format article
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/2445/105142
url https://hdl.handle.net/2445/105142
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Versió postprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
Science Education, 2013, vol. 97, num. 4, p. 497-523
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv (c) Wiley, 2013
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv (c) Wiley, 2013
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Articles publicats en revistes (Cognició, Desenvolupament i Psicologia de l'Educació)
reponame:Dipòsit Digital de la UB
instname:Universidad de Barcelona
instname_str Universidad de Barcelona
reponame_str Dipòsit Digital de la UB
collection Dipòsit Digital de la UB
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869410304030408704
score 15.300724

Similares en LA Referencia