It is a matter of quasi-consensus among argumentation researchers that engaging in argumentation sets the scene for changes in people’s views. However, the actual process by which such changes occur h

The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building

Classical informal reasoning "fallacies," for example, begging the question or arguing from ignorance, while ubiquitous in everyday argumentation, have been subject to little systematic investigation in cognitive psychology. In this article it is argued that these "fallacies" provide a rich taxonomy of argument forms that can be differentially strong, dependent on their content. A Bayesian theory of content-dependent argument strength is presented. Possible psychological mechanisms are identified. Experiments are presented investigating whether people's judgments of the strength of 3 fallacies--the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the circular argument or petitio principii, and the slippery slope argument--are affected by the factors a Bayesian account predicts. This research suggests that Bayesian accounts of reasoning can be extended to the more general human activity of argumentation.

The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies

In this study we argue that narrative storytelling and expository discussion, as 2 distinct discourse genres, differ both in linguistic expression and in their underlying principles of organization—schema-based in narratives and category-based in exposition. Innovative analyses applied to 160 personal-experience narratives and expository essays written by schoolchildren, adolescents, and adults on the shared topic of interpersonal conflict point to certain apparently contradictory facts about developing discourse abilities in the 2 genres. For example, genre differentiation is established early on (even the youngest children distinguish between the 2 types of discourse), but with age, participants tend to diverge from genre-typical content (by including expository-type generalizations in narratives and narrative-like incidents in expository texts). Also, across age groups, in local linguistic expression, participants use more advanced vocabulary and grammar in expository than in narrative texts, ...

Comparing Narrative and Expository Text Construction Across Adolescence: A Developmental Paradox

Fourth- and sixth-grade students with and without learning disabilities (LD) wrote persuasive essays about controversial topics under 2 different conditions. Students in the general goal condition were asked to write a letter to persuade an audience to agree with their position. Students in the elaborated goal condition were given the same general goal plus explicit subgoals based on the elements of argumentative discourse. Sixth-grade students in the elaborated goal condition produced more persuasive essays and included a greater number of argumentative elements in their essays than did either 6th graders in the general goal condition or 4th graders in both goal conditions. In addition, students with LD wrote less persuasively than did their normally achieving peers. Implications for the study of argumentative writing are discussed.

The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers.

This paper undertakes a review of the literature on writing cognition, writing instruction, and writing assessment with the goal of developing a framework and competency model for a new approach to writing assessment. The model developed is part of the Cognitively Based Assessments of, for, and as Learning (CBAL) initiative, an ongoing research project at ETS intended to develop a new form of kindergarten through Grade 12 (K–12) assessment that is based on modern cognitive understandings; built around integrated, foundational, constructed-response tasks that are equally useful for assessment and for instruction; and structured to allow multiple measurements over the course of the school year. The model that emerges from a review of the literature on writing places a strong emphasis on writing as an integrated, socially situated skill that cannot be assessed properly without taking into account the fact that most writing tasks involve management of a complex array of skills over the course of a writing project, including language and literacy skills, document-creation and document-management skills, and critical-thinking skills. As such, the model makes strong connections with emerging conceptions of reading and literacy, suggesting an assessment approach in which writing is viewed as calling upon a broader construct than is usually tested in assessments that focus on relatively simple, on-demand writing tasks.

/pdf/cognitive-models-of-writing-writing-proficiency-as-a-complex-2wjh23xcsd.pdf

Cognitive models of writing: writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill

Although children exhibit oral argumentative capabilities at a very young age, the ability to carry out the same argumentative processes in writing seems to be acquired later. The present study focuses on argumentative negotiation, a process by which speakers “remove themselves” from their discourse, thereby providing “room for discussion” with their addressee(s). This process is characteristic of elaborate argumentative discourse. At what age is it mastered in its various text forms? What factors explain it? Each of 115 subjects from 10 to 16 years old performed four tasks: an argumentative writing task, a textuality task, an argumentative script inference task, and an argumentativity judgment task. Progress was observed between the ages of 10 and 16 on all four tasks, particularly for argumentativity judgments and argumentative writing. Moreover, the performance observed on these two tasks was highly correlated for the older children.

Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends

The development of argumentative writing is studied here by examining the structural organization of argumentative texts. It is assumed that the ability to construct supporting relationships, that is, a conclusion statement supported by argument statements, is acquired gradually with age. The following stages of acquisition are postulated: (1) a preargumentation stage, where at first no explicit position is stated, and then an explicit position is stated but is not supported by an argument; (2) a minimal argumentation stage, where a position is explicitly taken and supported by one argument; and (3) an elaborated argumentation stage, where at least two unrelated supporting arguments are used, and then two related arguments are used. Two corpora were gathered under similar conditions: collective debate in the classroom, followed by individual essays written on the chosen topic. The first corpus was produced by 147 children aged 7 to 14, and a group of 34 college students. The second corpus included the protocols of 92 children aged 11 to 16 the essays were graded for the presence or absence of each structural level, and then classified at the highest structural level exhibited. The resulting classification largely confirmed the hypothesized order for the stages of argumentative development. The minimal argumentative structure (standpoint + one supporting argument) was mastered by nearly 90% of the 7 and 8 year-olds. The most elaborate structural level in our model (two related arguments) was attained later: less than one out of four 7–8 year olds versus three out of four beyond age 14. Techniques involving more complex argumentative relations such as refutations and counterarguments, or restriction of one argument by another, are mastered even later and seem to be strongly linked to the nature of the issues under debate. Three main conclusions can be drawn from these results: precocious argumentative skills exist in children before age 11 or 12, argumentative discourse complexity continues to increase up to age 14 and beyond, and the characteristics of the referential domain of argumentation have an impact on this structural elaboration process.

Writing argumentative text: A developmental study of the acquisition of supporting structures

The goal of this study was to analyze the development of the relationship between conceptual and linguistic processes as regards idea ordering and structuring (linearizing), when composing a text. Participants (from 7th graders to University students) were required to compose a text using a list of eleven scrambled ideas. Conceptual rules allow to a priori determine an optimal ordering of these ideas. Results showed a significant increase, with grade level, in the establishment of the postulated conceptual order, and in the linguistic elaboration of the text structure. A large autonomy was observed between conceptual and linguistic processes. The discussion considers the following points: The relevance of the notion of text optimal order; the unequal development with grade level of the varied linguistic skills; the dissymmetry in conceptual-linguistic relationships; the usefulness of the experimental paradigm; some consequences for education.

Ordering and structuring ideas in text: From conceptual organization to linguistic formulation

Two complementary experiments analyzed the acquisition of text content linearization in writing, in French-speaking participants from third to ninth grades. In both experiments, a scrambled text paradigm was used: eleven ideas presented in random order had to be rearranged coherently so as to compose a text. Linearization was analyzed on the basis of the conceptual ordering of ideas and writing fluency. The first experiment focused on the effect of superstructural facilitation (in decreasing order: 1—instructional, 2—narrative, 3—argumentative), while the second experiment studied the effect of prewriting conditions: 1—scrambled presentation, 2—macrostructural facilitation, 3—ideas given in optimal order (control condition). As expected, scores in conceptual ordering and writing fluency improved through the grade levels. Students were most successful with respect to conceptual ordering in the instructional superstructure, followed by the narrative and finally the argumentative superstructures. The prewriting assignment also had the expected effect (control better than macrostructural presentation which, in turn, was better than the random order) but only with the argumentative superstructure. Contrary to conceptual ordering, writing fluency was not affected by the type of superstructure, although we did record an effect of the prewriting condition. The results are discussed in light of Bereiter and Scardamalia’s knowledge transforming strategy (1987) taking into account cognitive development and French language curriculum.

Acquisition of the linearization process in text composition in third to ninth graders: effects of textual superstructure and macrostructural organization.

Written argumentative texts were collected from 7 to 14 year-old-children in two situations: one in which a scientific-like issue was to be debated (formal discourse: FD) and one in which an opinion was to be defended (natural discourse: ND). The structure of the supporting arguments advanced in the individual protocols were analyzed. Various structural indices were defined and calculated for each protocol, and then input into a factorial correspondence analysis. In both the FD and ND conditions, the main factorial axis opposes long protocols to short ones. This finding held true even though the other indices were weighted to compensate for protocol length. The length variable thus appears to be a discourse characteristic as such. Furthermore, long FD protocols were associated with embedded structures and a substantial amount of rewording. Long ND protocols had a low degree of embedding, and contained many accumulated arguments and thematic breaks. The second axis opposes sequential chaining of arguments to argument coordination in FD. In ND, it opposes the absence of structure and many rewordings to a variety of more or less highly organized structures, but without sequential chaining. These analyses revealed some interesting differences between formal and natural discourse: the key role played by sequential chaining in FD versus the insignificance of this type of structure in ND, and the important but different role of rewording in FD and ND. Protocol length was found to be strongly linked to subject age: older subjects have more arguments at their disposal. But in addition to acquiring the ability to write longer texts, older children are able to use different structures for argumentation, depending on the type of referential space involved.

Pierre Coirier

Papers

Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends

Writing argumentative text: A developmental study of the acquisition of supporting structures

Ordering and structuring ideas in text: From conceptual organization to linguistic formulation

Acquisition of the linearization process in text composition in third to ninth graders: effects of textual superstructure and macrostructural organization.

Structures of argumentative discourse: Effects of type of referential space