Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education

By E. Michael Nussbaum. 2011

225 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9ab37701ecf1b96482a14b930ee5ce397a3ab092

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

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Critical Questions and Argument Stratagems: A Framework for Enhancing and Analyzing Students' Reasoning Practices (2011, background): “First, there are seven different types of argument dialogues, depending on whether the goal of the participants is to persuade, negotiate, acquire information, deliberate, inquire, express emotion and grievances, or a mixture of these ( Walton, 1998 ; see also Nussbaum, in press , for a summary).”
Teachers’ Beliefs, in the Context of Policy Reform (2016, background): “Argumentation is “a process of thinking and social interaction in which individuals construct and critique arguments” (Nussbaum, 2011, p. 84).”
Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching (2013, background): “, rules of what is considered appropriate in the dialogue), the standards used to evaluate the strength of proposed arguments, and the pedagogical approaches to teaching argumentation (Nussbaum, 2011; Walton, 1992).”
Scientific Literacy: The Role of Goal-Directed Reading and Evaluation in Understanding Scientific Information (2014, unknown): “Although there are descriptive frameworks of argument, mostly based on Toulmin (1958), and more recent attempts to model argumentation (Nussbaum, 2011), there is no standard model of argument processing.”
The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science (2015, background): “For example, students who engage in argument from scientific evidence may experience a large degree of cognitive elaboration (Nussbaum, 2011), which in turn could deepen understanding of science content.”
Coding Classroom Interactions for Collective and Individual Engagement (2015, background): “LINKING INDIVIDUAL ENGAGEMENT AND COLLECTIVE ENGAGEMENT THROUGH CODING ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSES Scientific knowledge emerges from collaborative and critical argumentation, which is a constructive and social process where individuals compare, critique, and revise ideas (Nussbaum, 2011).”
Plausibility Judgments in Conceptual Change and Epistemic Cognition (2016, methodology): “Individuals may evaluate the strength of arguments when probabilistic reasoning is understood and properly employed through evidentiary analysis (E. M. Nussbaum, 2011).”
Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments (2020, background): “…complex knowledge claims found in today’s society (e.g., scientific explanations about phenomena, such as an explanation about the causes of breast cancer), people’s judgments may be provisional and qualitative, but not inherently based on probabilistic reasoning (Nussbaum, 2011; Rescher, 2012).”