Promoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing

By E. Michael Nussbaum, Gregory Schraw. 2007

285 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8dbcdf335a83b8b18ee8b480d4ed9204cff78b03

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Jeffrey Alan Greene
2. E. Michael Nussbaum
3. C. P. Constantinou
4. Kalypso Iordanou
5. Ivar Bråten
6. Julian Roelle
7. Alexander Renkl
8. Inga Glogger-Frey

In Education

1. Jeffrey Alan Greene
2. E. Michael Nussbaum
3. C. P. Constantinou
4. Kalypso Iordanou
5. Ivar Bråten
6. William A. Sandoval
7. Ordene V. Edwards
8. Alexander Renkl

Citations in the corpus

• The Self-Regulation-View in Writing-to-Learn: Using Journal Writing to Optimize Cognitive Load in Self-Regulated Learning (2020, background): “…of the rhetorical genre in question (i.e., what makes a good summary or a good argumentation?) was the main focus in those studies and learning goals such as deep comprehension and long-term retention of subject matter were rather secondary (see, e.g., Klein et al. 2017; Nussbaum and Schraw 2007).”
• Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines (2010, background): “to prompt better arguments, including the refutation strategy, the synthesizing strategy, and the weighing strategy (Nussbaum and Schraw 2007).”
• Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues (2020, methodology): “We focus on the construction of different types of arguments because the ability to produce arguments that integrate multiple positions or accounts reflects one’s depth of reasoning (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007).”
• Do Goals Affect the Structure of Students' Argumentative Writing Strategies? (2009, background): “It should be noted, however, that Ferretti et al. (2000) did not analyze for the presence of counterarguments (i.e., potential criticisms that can be leveled against either the student’s standpoint or the reasons for that standpoint; Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007).”
• Engaging and Supporting Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics (2009, background): “When writing opinion essays, students need to integrate both argument and counterarguments in order to develop a conclusion (Nussbaum and Schraw, 2007).”
• Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education (2011, methodology): “As an example of how argumentation frameworks evolve, and of the utility of Walton and Bayes’ conceptualizations, consider the framework that the author developed and used in several previous studies: argument–counterargument integration ( Nussbaum, 2008b ; Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007 ).”
• Critical Questions and Argument Stratagems: A Framework for Enhancing and Analyzing Students' Reasoning Practices (2011, background): “Argument–Counterargument Integration Building on Leitão’s work, Nussbaum and Schraw (2007) proposed the concept of argument–counterargument integration as a productive concept for defining a well-developed argument schema.”
• Handbook of Epistemic Cognition (2016, background): “These approaches include explaining what constitutes a good argument to the student (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007); providing examples (Nussbaum, 2008); providing hints and models of arguments from experts (Bell & Linn, 2000); teaching strategies that help produce good written arguments (De La Paz &…”