CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Science Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEducation and Critical Thinking Development

How to improve argumentation comprehension in university students: experimental test of a training approach

Open access
von der Mühlen, Sarah, Richter, Tobias, Schmid, Sebastian, Berthold, Kirsten·2019·Instructional Science
DOI 10.1007/s11251-018-9471-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The ability to comprehend informal arguments is essential for scientific literacy but students often lack structural knowledge about these arguments, especially when the arguments are more complex. This study used a pre-post-test design with a follow-up 4 weeks later to investigate whether a computerised training in identifying structural components of informal arguments can improve university students’ competences to understand complex arguments. The training was embedded in a constructivist learning environment and contents were based on the Toulmin model of argument structure, according to which arguments can be deconstructed into several functional components: Claim, datum, warrant, backing evidence, and rebuttal. Being able to identify the warrant is central for scientific literacy, as the warrant determines whether a conclusion is justified given the data. Results indicate that training in argument structure did not generally improve performance for all students and argument types, but that it was particularly helpful for identifying more complex arguments with a less typical structure and relational aspects between key components (i.e. warrants). High achieving students profited the most from this intervention, and the intervention was also helpful for students with high pretest accuracy scores. Our results suggest that interventions to foster argumentation skills should be included into the curriculum and these interventions should be designed to match learners’ ability level.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11251-018-9471-3

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • von der Mühlen et al. (2018) found that training in argumentation comprehension was not equally useful for recognizing different argument components; it particularly helped identify more complex arguments with less typical structure and relational aspects such as warrants.

    “The authors found that the intervention was not equally useful in recognizing the different components of the arguments.Specifically, the training was particularly helpful in identifying more complex arguments with a less typical structure and the relational aspects between key components, i.e. warrants.”

    From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as von der Mühlen et al. (2018)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Amstad, T. (1978). Wie verständlich sind unsere Zeitungen? [How understandable are our newspapers?] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Zürich: University of Zürich.
  2. Freeman, A. M., Morris, P. B., Barnard, N., Esselstyn, C. B., Ros, E., Agatston, A., et al. (2017). Trend- ing cardiovascular nutrition controversies. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 69, 1127-1187.
  3. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
von der Mühlen, S., Richter, T., Schmid, S., & Berthold, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
  • Bielefeld University (DE)
Corresponding author
Richter, Tobias
ORCID
Venue
Instructional Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-10-17
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
215-237
ISSN
  • 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1952
DOI
10.1007/s11251-018-9471-3
OpenAlex
W2888462774
Cited by
34
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2
FWCI
13.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Instructional Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01PK15009B, 01PK11017B)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
Keywords
Toulmin model, argument structure, constructivist learning, scientific literacy, university students, individual differences in learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review