PL EN


2016 | 52 | 3(209) | 405-416
Article title

Defi niowanie przez uczniów znaczenia terminów „argument” i „kontrargument”

Authors
Content
Title variants
EN
Defi ning meanings of the terms „argument” and „counterargument” by students
Conference
Siła argumentu: racja przekonanie, konsensus, 20-21 Listopad 2015, Wrocław
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
PL
W niniejszym tekście przedstawione zostały wstępne wyniki analiz dotyczących sposobów defi niowania przez uczniów znaczenia terminów „argument” i „kontrargument”. Poddany analizie materiał obejmował 211 defi nicji słowa „argument” i 164 defi nicje słowa „kontrargument”. Defi nicje te uzyskano w badaniu, w którym uczestniczyło 240 uczniów (120 dziewcząt i 120 chłopców) w wieku od 9. do 18. roku życia. Byli to uczniowie: trzecich i szóstych klas szkół podstawowych oraz uczniowie ostatnich klas gimnazjum i ostatnich klas liceum. Wyniki badań wskazują, że do przekonywania jako funkcji argumentu uczniowie wraz z wiekem odwołują się rzadziej. Od momentu zakończenia edukacji na poziomie podstawowym coraz częściej wskazują oni na relacje łączące przesłanki z konkluzją. Znajomość znaczenia terminu „kontrargument” deklarowało mniej uczniów i najczęściej wskazywało na kontrargument jako przeciwieństwo argumentu.
EN
In the paper, I present the preliminary results on how students defi ne the meanings of the terms “argument” and “counterargument”. The analysed material consists of 211 defi nitions of the word “argument” and 164 defi nitions of the word “counterargument”. The defi nitions were obtained from 240 students (120 girls and 120 boys) aged 9 to 18. The study covered the students of the third and sixth years of the primary school, as well as those in their fi nal year of the secondary school. In their defi nitions, the older students referred to a function of an argument less frequently than their younger counterparts: they relatively rarely conveyed that a role of an argument is to convince. Instead, the older students were increasingly inclined to refer to relations between a premise and a conclusion as they defi ned the term. The knowledge of the meaning of the term “counterargument” was less common among the students. They usually provided a fuzzy defi nition of a counter-argument, contrasting it with an argument.
Year
Volume
52
Issue
Pages
405-416
Physical description
Dates
published
2016-07
Contributors
author
  • Instytut Psychologii, Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
References
  • Andrews R., 1995, Teaching and learning argument, London, NY: Cassell.
  • Andrews R., 2007, Argumentation, critical thinking and the postgraduate dissertation, “Educational Review”, 59: 1–18.
  • Bartsch K., Wright J., Estes D., 2010, Young children’s persuasion in everyday conversation: Tactics and attunement to others’ mental states”, “Social Development”, 19: 394–416.
  • Bartsch K., Wade C.E., Estes D., 2011, Children’s attention to others’ beliefs during persuasion: Improvised and selected arguments to puppets and people, “Social Development”, 19: 316–333.
  • Berland L., McNeill K., 2010, A learning progression for scientifi c argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts, “Science Education”, 94: 765–793.
  • Billig M., 1989, Psychology, rhetoric, and cognition, “History of the Human Sciences”, 2: 289–307.
  • Billig M., 1996, Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brożek A., Biedrzycki K., Bobiński W., Dobkowska J., 2011, Szkoła samodzielnego myślenia koncepcja badania umiejętności czytania ze zrozumieniem, interpretacji tekstu oraz tworzenia tekstu argumentacyjnego, [w:] Niemierko B., Szmigel M.K. (red.), Ewaluacja w edukacji: koncepcje, metody, perspektywy, Kraków: PTDE, 371–381.
  • Clark R.A., Delia J.G., 1976, The development of functional persuasive skills in childhood and early adolescence, “Child Development”, 47: 1008–1014.
  • Clark D.B., Samson V., Weinberger A., Erkens G., 2007, Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments, “Educational Psychology Review”, 19: 343–374.
  • Coffin C., 2009, Contemporary educational argumentation: A multimodal perspective, “Argumentation”, 23: 513–530.
  • Coffin C., O’Halloran K., 2009, Researching argumentation in educational contexts: new directions, new methods, “International Journal of Research & Method in Education”, 31: 219–227.
  • Coffin C., O’Halloran K., 2009a, Argument reconceived?, “Educational Review”, 61: 301–313.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association, 2010, Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, Dokument internetowy: http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdf [Dostęp: 3.03.2012].
  • Duschl R., Osborne J., 2002, Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education, “Studies in Science Education”, 38: 39–72.
  • Ferretti R.P., Lewis W.E., Andrews-Weckerly S., 2009, Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies?, “Journal of Educational Psychology”, 101: 577–589.
  • Howe C., Tolmie A., Thurston A., Toppin K., Christie D., Livingston K., Jessiman E., Donaldson C., 2009, Group work in elementary science: towards organizational principles for supporting pupil learning, “Learning and Instruction”, 17: 549–563.
  • Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P., Erduran S., 2007, Argumentation in science education: An Overview, [w:] Erduran S., Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P. (red.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, New York: Springer, 3–27.
  • Jonassen D.H., Kim B., 2010, Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines, “Educational Technology Research and Development”, 58: 439–457.
  • Kuhn D., 1993, Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking, “Science Education”, 77: 319–337.
  • Kuhn D., 2010, Teaching and learning science as argument, “Science Education”, 94: 810–824.
  • Macagno F., Mayweg-Paus, Kuhn D., 2015, Argumentation theory in education studies: Coding and improving students’ argumentative strategies, “Topoi”, 34: 523–537.
  • McCutchen D., 1987, Children’s discourse skill: Form and modality requirements of schooled writing, “Discourse Processes”, 10: 267–286.
  • Mercier H., Sperber D., 2011, Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory, “Behavioral and Brain Sciences”, 34: 57–111.
  • Newell G.E., Beach R., Smith J., VanDerHeide J., 2011, Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research, “Reading Research Quarterly”, 46: 273–304.
  • Nussbaum E.M., Kardash C.M., 2005, The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing, “Journal of Educational Psychology”, 97: 157–169.
  • O’Keefe D.J., 1999, How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of effects of one-sided and two-sided messages, [w:] M.E. Roloff (red.), Communication yearbook, Vol. 22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 209–249.
  • Osbourne J., 2010, Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse, “Science”, 328: 463–466.
  • Pelerman Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca L., 1969, The new rhertoric: A treatise on argumentation, London: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Reznitskaya A., Anderson R.C., 2006, Analyzing argumentation in rich, natural contexts, “Informal Logic”, 26: 175–198.
  • Reznitskaya A., Kuo L.-J., Clark A.-M., Millerd B., Jadallahd M., Anderson R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel K., 2009, Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions, “Cambridge Journal of Education”, 39: 29–48.
  • Sadler T.D., 2006, Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education, “Journal of Science Teacher Education”, 17: 323–346.
  • Scheuer O., Loll F., Pinkwart N., McLaren B.M., 2010, Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art, “International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning”, 1: 43–102.
  • Simon S., Erduran S., Osborne J., 2006, Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom, “International Journal of Science Education”, 28: 235–260.
  • Simon S., Richardson K., 2009, Argumentation in school science: Breaking the tradition of authoritative exposition through a pedagogy that promotes discussion and reasoning, Argumentation, 23: 469–493.
  • Tippett C., 2009, Argumentation: The language of science, “Journal of Elementary Science Education”, 21: 17–25.
  • Toulmin S., 1958, The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weinstock M., 2010, Epistemic understanding and sound reasoning skills that underlie effective democratic engagement, “In Factis Pax”, 4: 56–77.
  • Wingate U., 2012, “Argument!” helping students understand what essay writing is about, “Journal of English for Academic Purposes”, 11: 145–154.
  • Wolfe C.R., Britt M.A., 2008, Locus of the myside bias in written argumentation, “Thinking & Reasoning”, 14: 1–27.
  • Wolfe C.R., Britt M.A., Butler J.A., 2009, Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation, “Written Communication”, 26: 183–209.
  • Żytko M., 2006, Pisanie – żywy język dziecka, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
  • Żytko M., 2010, Pozwólmy dzieciom mówić i pisać – w kontekście badań umiejętności językowych trzecioklasistów, Warszawa: Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-ed3f5f0e-42d7-4081-998b-be1cea8954db
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.