An Empirically Grounded Framework That Evaluates Argument Quality in Scientific and Social Contexts

Autor/inn/en	Jin, Hui; Yan, Duanli; Mehl, Cathy E.; Llort, Kenneth; Cui, Wenju
Titel	An Empirically Grounded Framework That Evaluates Argument Quality in Scientific and Social Contexts
Quelle	In: International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 (2021) 4, S.681-700 (20 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1571-0068
DOI	10.1007/s10763-020-10075-9
Schlagwörter	Persuasive Discourse; Social Problems; Scientific Concepts; Urban Schools; Middle School Students; High School Students; Logical Thinking; Guides; Evaluation Methods; Student Evaluation + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Social problem; Soziales Problem; Urban area; Urban areas; School; Schools; Stadtregion; Stadt; Schule; Middle school; Middle schools; Student; Students; Mittelschule; Mittelstufenschule; Schüler; Schülerin; High school; High schools; Oberschule; Studentin; Handbuch; Leitfaden; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung
Abstract	This study was aimed to develop a general argumentation framework for evaluating the quality of causal arguments across scientific and social contexts. We designed a computer-delivered assessment that contains four scenario-based argumentation tasks. Each task asks students to identify relevant evidence from provided data sources and use the evidence to construct an argument that answers a causal question. One task is about a social issue, while the rest three tasks each requires knowledge of a scientific concept (melting/evaporation, photosynthesis, trophic cascade). The assessment was implemented with 349 students from urban middle and high schools. Based on the data and prior research, we developed an empirically grounded argumentation framework that contains four qualitatively different levels: non-causal arguments, causal arguments lacking logical connections, causal arguments with weak reasoning, and causal arguments with strong reasoning. The qualitative results provide evidence of the existence of the argumentation levels. The IRT analysis and the Wright map provide the evidence that the order of and the distinctions among the argumentation levels are meaningful. Together, the qualitative and quantitative results support the viability of the framework. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01