The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Shirley Simon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
arguing to learn and learning to argue case studies of how students Argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2008Co-Authors: Claudia Von Aufschnaiter, Sibel Erduran, Jonathan Osborne, Shirley SimonAbstract:In this study we investigated junior high school students' processes of Argumentation and cognitive development in science and socioscientific lessons. Detailed studies of the relationship between Argumentation and the development of scientific knowledge are rare. Using video and audio documents of small group and classroom discussions, the quality and frequency of students' Argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on the work of Toulmin (1958). In parallel, students' development and use of scientific knowledge was also investigated, drawing on a schema for determining the content and level of abstraction of students' meaning-making. These two complementary analyses enabled an exploration of their impact on each other. The microanalysis of student discourse showed that: (a) when engaging in Argumentation students draw on their prior experiences and knowledge; (b) such activity enables students to consolidate their existing knowledge and elaborate their science understanding at relatively high levels of abstraction. The results also suggest that students can acquire a higher quality of Argumentation that consists of well-grounded knowledge with a relatively low level of abstraction. The findings further suggest that the main indicator of whether or not a high quality of argument is likely to be attained is students' familiarity and understanding of the content of the task. The major implication of this work for developing Argumentation in the classroom is the need to consider the nature and extent of students' content-specific experiences and knowledge prior to asking them to engage in Argumentation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 101–131, 2008
-
learning to teach Argumentation research and development in the science classroom
International Journal of Science Education, 2006Co-Authors: Shirley Simon, Sibel Erduran, Jonathan OsborneAbstract:The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of Argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a one-year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of Argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio and video recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement Argumentation. To assess the quality of Argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Analysis shows there was development in teachers' use of Argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of Argumentation is teacher-specific, as is the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers' oral contributions that facilitated and supported Argumentation. The analysis showed that all teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in Argumentation and that the teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of Argumentation (TAP analysis) also encouraged higher order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers' facilitation of Argumentation has helped to guide the development of in-service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers.
-
enhancing the quality of Argumentation in school science
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004Co-Authors: Jonathan Osborne, Sibel Erduran, Shirley SimonAbstract:The research reported in this paper focussed on the design of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of Argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over two years between 1999 and 2001 in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first developmental phase, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support Argumentation in the classroom and to assess teachers‘ development with teaching Argumentation. Data were collected by videoing and audio recording the teachers attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of Argumentation were developed based on Toulmin‘s argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of Argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of Argumentation is teacher specific, as is the nature of the change. In the second phase of the project, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific Argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a control group at the beginning and end of the year. Here the emphasis lay on assessing the progression in student capabilities with Argumentation. Hence data were collected from several lessons of two groups of students engaging in Argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality, the findings show that there was an improvement in the quality of students‘ Argumentation. In addition, the research offers methodological developments for work in this field.
-
tapping into Argumentation developments in the application of toulmin s argument pattern for studying science discourse
Science Education, 2004Co-Authors: Sibel Erduran, Shirley Simon, Jonathan OsborneAbstract:This paper reports some methodological approaches to the analysis of argu- mentation discourse developed as part of the two-and-a-half year project titled "Enhancing theQualityofArgumentinSchoolScience"supportedbytheEconomicandSocialResearch CouncilintheUnitedKingdom.Inthisprojectresearcherscollaboratedwithmiddle-school scienceteacherstodevelopmodelsofinstructionalactivitiesinanefforttomakeargumenta- tion a component of instruction. We begin the paper with a brief theoretical justification for why we consider Argumentation to be of significance to science education. We then contex- tualize the use of Toulmin's Argument Pattern in the study of Argumentation discourse and provide a justification for the methodological outcomes our approach generates. We illus- trate how our work refines and develops research methodologies in Argumentation analysis. In particular, we present two methodological approaches to the analysis of Argumentation resulting in whole-class as well as small-group student discussions. For each approach, we illustrate our coding scheme and some results as well as how our methodological approach has enabled our inquiry into the quality of Argumentation in the classroom. We conclude withsomeimplicationsforfutureresearchinArgumentationinscienceeducation. C ! 2004
Jonathan Osborne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
arguing to learn and learning to argue case studies of how students Argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2008Co-Authors: Claudia Von Aufschnaiter, Sibel Erduran, Jonathan Osborne, Shirley SimonAbstract:In this study we investigated junior high school students' processes of Argumentation and cognitive development in science and socioscientific lessons. Detailed studies of the relationship between Argumentation and the development of scientific knowledge are rare. Using video and audio documents of small group and classroom discussions, the quality and frequency of students' Argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on the work of Toulmin (1958). In parallel, students' development and use of scientific knowledge was also investigated, drawing on a schema for determining the content and level of abstraction of students' meaning-making. These two complementary analyses enabled an exploration of their impact on each other. The microanalysis of student discourse showed that: (a) when engaging in Argumentation students draw on their prior experiences and knowledge; (b) such activity enables students to consolidate their existing knowledge and elaborate their science understanding at relatively high levels of abstraction. The results also suggest that students can acquire a higher quality of Argumentation that consists of well-grounded knowledge with a relatively low level of abstraction. The findings further suggest that the main indicator of whether or not a high quality of argument is likely to be attained is students' familiarity and understanding of the content of the task. The major implication of this work for developing Argumentation in the classroom is the need to consider the nature and extent of students' content-specific experiences and knowledge prior to asking them to engage in Argumentation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 101–131, 2008
-
learning to teach Argumentation research and development in the science classroom
International Journal of Science Education, 2006Co-Authors: Shirley Simon, Sibel Erduran, Jonathan OsborneAbstract:The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of Argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a one-year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of Argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio and video recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement Argumentation. To assess the quality of Argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Analysis shows there was development in teachers' use of Argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of Argumentation is teacher-specific, as is the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers' oral contributions that facilitated and supported Argumentation. The analysis showed that all teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in Argumentation and that the teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of Argumentation (TAP analysis) also encouraged higher order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers' facilitation of Argumentation has helped to guide the development of in-service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers.
-
enhancing the quality of Argumentation in school science
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004Co-Authors: Jonathan Osborne, Sibel Erduran, Shirley SimonAbstract:The research reported in this paper focussed on the design of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of Argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over two years between 1999 and 2001 in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first developmental phase, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support Argumentation in the classroom and to assess teachers‘ development with teaching Argumentation. Data were collected by videoing and audio recording the teachers attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of Argumentation were developed based on Toulmin‘s argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of Argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of Argumentation is teacher specific, as is the nature of the change. In the second phase of the project, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific Argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a control group at the beginning and end of the year. Here the emphasis lay on assessing the progression in student capabilities with Argumentation. Hence data were collected from several lessons of two groups of students engaging in Argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality, the findings show that there was an improvement in the quality of students‘ Argumentation. In addition, the research offers methodological developments for work in this field.
-
tapping into Argumentation developments in the application of toulmin s argument pattern for studying science discourse
Science Education, 2004Co-Authors: Sibel Erduran, Shirley Simon, Jonathan OsborneAbstract:This paper reports some methodological approaches to the analysis of argu- mentation discourse developed as part of the two-and-a-half year project titled "Enhancing theQualityofArgumentinSchoolScience"supportedbytheEconomicandSocialResearch CouncilintheUnitedKingdom.Inthisprojectresearcherscollaboratedwithmiddle-school scienceteacherstodevelopmodelsofinstructionalactivitiesinanefforttomakeargumenta- tion a component of instruction. We begin the paper with a brief theoretical justification for why we consider Argumentation to be of significance to science education. We then contex- tualize the use of Toulmin's Argument Pattern in the study of Argumentation discourse and provide a justification for the methodological outcomes our approach generates. We illus- trate how our work refines and develops research methodologies in Argumentation analysis. In particular, we present two methodological approaches to the analysis of Argumentation resulting in whole-class as well as small-group student discussions. For each approach, we illustrate our coding scheme and some results as well as how our methodological approach has enabled our inquiry into the quality of Argumentation in the classroom. We conclude withsomeimplicationsforfutureresearchinArgumentationinscienceeducation. C ! 2004
Phan Minh Dung - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
computing ideal sceptical Argumentation
Artificial Intelligence, 2007Co-Authors: Phan Minh Dung, Paolo Mancarella, Francesca ToniAbstract:We present two dialectic procedures for the sceptical ideal semantics for Argumentation. The first procedure is defined in terms of dispute trees, for abstract Argumentation frameworks. The second procedure is defined in dialectical terms, for assumption-based Argumentation frameworks. The procedures are adapted from (variants of) corresponding procedures for computing the credulous admissible semantics for assumption-based Argumentation, proposed in [P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114-159]. We prove that the first procedure is sound and complete, and the second procedure is sound in general and complete for a special but natural class of assumption-based Argumentation frameworks, that we refer to as p-acyclic. We also prove that in the case of p-acyclic assumption-based Argumentation frameworks (a variant of) the procedure of [P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114-159] for the admissible semantics is complete. Finally, we present a variant of the procedure of [P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114-159] that is sound for the sceptical grounded semantics.
-
on the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning logic programming and n person games
Artificial Intelligence, 1995Co-Authors: Phan Minh DungAbstract:The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism, humans use in Argumentation, and to explore ways to implement this mechanism on computers. We do so by first developing a theory for Argumentation whose central notion is the acceptability of arguments. Then we argue for the “correctness” or “appropriateness” of our theory with two strong arguments. The first one shows that most of the major approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning in AI and logic programming are special forms of our theory of Argumentation. The second argument illustrates how our theory can be used to investigate the logical structure of many practical problems. This argument is based on a result showing that our theory captures naturally the solutions of the theory of n-person games and of the well-known stable marriage problem. By showing that Argumentation can be viewed as a special form of logic programming with negation as failure, we introduce a general logic-programming-based method for generating meta-interpreters for Argumentation systems, a method very much similar to the compiler-compiler idea in conventional programming. Keyword: Argumentation; Nonmonotonic reasoning; Logic programming; n-person games; The stable marriage problem
-
on the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993Co-Authors: Phan Minh DungAbstract:The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism humans use in Argumentation and its role in different major approaches to commonsense reasoning in AI and logic programming. We present three novel results: We develop a theory for Argumentation in which the acceptability of arguments is precisely defined. We show that logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning in AI are different forms of Argumentation. We show that Argumentation can be viewed as a special form of logic programming with negation as failure. This result introduces a general method for generating metainterpreters for Argumentation systems.
Sibel Erduran - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Science and Religious Education Teachers’ Views of Argumentation and Its Teaching
Research in Science Education, 2020Co-Authors: Sibel Erduran, Liam Guilfoyle, Wonyong ParkAbstract:Argumentation, the justification of claims with reasons and/or evidence, has emerged as a significant educational goal in science education in recent years. It has also been noted as an important pedagogical approach in numerous school subjects. Yet, there is limited understanding of how teachers’ views of Argumentation and its teaching compare in different school subjects. In order to ensure coherence in the implementation of the school curriculum, it is important to understand such views particularly in the context of subjects that are often positioned to be in conflict with each other, for example in the context of science versus religious education. In this paper, we present an empirical study on how science and religious education teachers view Argumentation and its teaching. The data are drawn from a survey of secondary school teachers of 11–16-year-old students in England. Twenty-nine teachers were presented with an online survey in order to collect data on various aspects of their views including pedagogical strategies that support Argumentation. Qualitative and quantitative results suggest that teachers of both subjects consider Argumentation to be a significant aspect of their subject although particular nuances exist in how the teachers interpret Argumentation. Furthermore, the data suggest that there are statistically significant differences in terms of the perceived frequency of pedagogical strategies used to support Argumentation in lessons.
-
arguing to learn and learning to argue case studies of how students Argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2008Co-Authors: Claudia Von Aufschnaiter, Sibel Erduran, Jonathan Osborne, Shirley SimonAbstract:In this study we investigated junior high school students' processes of Argumentation and cognitive development in science and socioscientific lessons. Detailed studies of the relationship between Argumentation and the development of scientific knowledge are rare. Using video and audio documents of small group and classroom discussions, the quality and frequency of students' Argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on the work of Toulmin (1958). In parallel, students' development and use of scientific knowledge was also investigated, drawing on a schema for determining the content and level of abstraction of students' meaning-making. These two complementary analyses enabled an exploration of their impact on each other. The microanalysis of student discourse showed that: (a) when engaging in Argumentation students draw on their prior experiences and knowledge; (b) such activity enables students to consolidate their existing knowledge and elaborate their science understanding at relatively high levels of abstraction. The results also suggest that students can acquire a higher quality of Argumentation that consists of well-grounded knowledge with a relatively low level of abstraction. The findings further suggest that the main indicator of whether or not a high quality of argument is likely to be attained is students' familiarity and understanding of the content of the task. The major implication of this work for developing Argumentation in the classroom is the need to consider the nature and extent of students' content-specific experiences and knowledge prior to asking them to engage in Argumentation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 101–131, 2008
-
Argumentation in science education perspectives from classroom based research
2007Co-Authors: Sibel Erduran, Marilar AleixandreAbstract:Editors' Foreword Preface. A. Tiberghien Section I Argumentation Foundations Chapter 1. Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. M Jimenez Aleixandre & S Erduran Chapter 2. Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation. M. Garcia-Mila & C. Andersen Chapter 3. Methodological Foundations in the Study of Science Classroom Argumentation. S. Erduran Chapter 4. What can Argumentation tell us about Epistemology? W. Sandoval & K. Millwood. Section II Research on Teaching and Learning Argumentation Chapter 5. Designing Argumentation Learning Environments. M. Jimenez Aleixandre Chapter 6. Social Aspects of Argumentation. S. Kolst' & M. Ratcliffe Chapter 7. Analysis of Lines of Reasoning in Written Argumentation. G. Kelly, J. Regev & W. Prothero. Chapter 8. Quality of Argumentation and Epistemic Criteria. R Duschl Section III Argumentation in Context Chapter 9. Argumentation in Socio-scientific Contexts. L. Simonneaux Chapter 10. The Role of Moral Reasoning in Argumentation: Conscience, Characterand Care. D. Zeidler & T. Sadler Chapter 11. Role of Information Technology in Supporting Argumentation in theClassroom. D. Clark, M. Baker, A. Weinberger and M. Menekse Chapter 12. Science Teacher Education and Professional Development inArgumentation. A. Zohar
-
learning to teach Argumentation research and development in the science classroom
International Journal of Science Education, 2006Co-Authors: Shirley Simon, Sibel Erduran, Jonathan OsborneAbstract:The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of Argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a one-year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of Argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio and video recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement Argumentation. To assess the quality of Argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Analysis shows there was development in teachers' use of Argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of Argumentation is teacher-specific, as is the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers' oral contributions that facilitated and supported Argumentation. The analysis showed that all teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in Argumentation and that the teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of Argumentation (TAP analysis) also encouraged higher order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers' facilitation of Argumentation has helped to guide the development of in-service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers.
-
enhancing the quality of Argumentation in school science
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004Co-Authors: Jonathan Osborne, Sibel Erduran, Shirley SimonAbstract:The research reported in this paper focussed on the design of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of Argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over two years between 1999 and 2001 in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first developmental phase, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support Argumentation in the classroom and to assess teachers‘ development with teaching Argumentation. Data were collected by videoing and audio recording the teachers attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of Argumentation were developed based on Toulmin‘s argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of Argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of Argumentation is teacher specific, as is the nature of the change. In the second phase of the project, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific Argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a control group at the beginning and end of the year. Here the emphasis lay on assessing the progression in student capabilities with Argumentation. Hence data were collected from several lessons of two groups of students engaging in Argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality, the findings show that there was an improvement in the quality of students‘ Argumentation. In addition, the research offers methodological developments for work in this field.
Trevor J M Benchcapon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
abstract dialectical frameworks for legal reasoning
International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, 2014Co-Authors: Latifa Alabdulkarim, Katie Atkinson, Trevor J M BenchcaponAbstract:Dialectical Frameworks for Legal Reasoning Latifa AL-ABDULKARIM, Katie ATKINSON, Trevor BENCH-CAPON Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, UK Abstract. In recent years a powerful generalisation of Dung’s abstract Argumentation frameworks, Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADF), has been developed. ADFs generalise the abstract Argumentation frameworks introduced by Dung by replacing Dung’s single acceptance condition (that all attackers be defeated) with acceptance conditions local to each particular node. Such local acceptance conditions allow structured Argumentation to be straightforwardly incorporated. Related to ADFs are prioritised ADFs, which allow for reasons pro and con a node. In this paper we show how these structures provide an excellent framework for representing a leading approach to reasoning with legal cases. In recent years a powerful generalisation of Dung’s abstract Argumentation frameworks, Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADF), has been developed. ADFs generalise the abstract Argumentation frameworks introduced by Dung by replacing Dung’s single acceptance condition (that all attackers be defeated) with acceptance conditions local to each particular node. Such local acceptance conditions allow structured Argumentation to be straightforwardly incorporated. Related to ADFs are prioritised ADFs, which allow for reasons pro and con a node. In this paper we show how these structures provide an excellent framework for representing a leading approach to reasoning with legal cases.
-
Argumentation in artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence, 2007Co-Authors: Trevor J M Benchcapon, Paul E DunneAbstract:Over the last ten years, Argumentation has come to be increasingly central as a core study within Artificial Intelligence (AI). The articles forming this volume reflect a variety of important trends, developments, and applications covering a range of current topics relating to the theory and applications of Argumentation. Our aims in this introduction are, firstly, to place these contributions in the context of the historical foundations of Argumentation in AI and, subsequently, to discuss a number of themes that have emerged in recent years resulting in a significant broadening of the areas in which Argumentation based methods are used. We begin by presenting a brief overview of the issues of interest within the classical study of Argumentation: in particular, its relationship-in terms of both similarities and important differences-to traditional concepts of logical reasoning and mathematical proof. We continue by outlining how a number of foundational contributions provided the basis for the formulation of Argumentation models and their promotion in AI related settings and then consider a number of new themes that have emerged in recent years, many of which provide the principal topics of the research presented in this volume.
