CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesWriting and Handwriting EducationEducation and Critical Thinking Development

Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing.

Nussbaum, E. Michael·2008·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined a new prewriting tool, argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs), which are used to write reflective opinion essays. AVDs are based on the theoretical concept of argument-counterargument integration, which involves evaluating and integrating both sides of an issue before developing a final conclusion on a controversial question. In a test of the effectiveness of AVDs, 45 undergraduates at a large, southwestern university were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Both groups wrote 4 opinion essays over a 4-week period. The experimental group also received training on using the AVDs, including instruction on criteria for weighing arguments. Results indicated that AVD training was effective in enhancing argument-counterargument integration. Furthermore, examination of integration strategies used by participants revealed a new strategy, minimization, which was not previously part of E. M. Nussbaum and G. Schraw's (2007) argument-counterargument integration framework. Minimization involves curtailing the importance or extensiveness of a problem or advantage as a heuristic shortcut for weighing advantages and disadvantages. The role of critical questions and argumentation schemata in argument-counterargument integration is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Integration requires reflective argumentative writing.

    “Integration requires reflective argumentative writing, as proposed by Nussbaum (2008a) and Nussbaum and Kardash (2005).”

    From Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? (2020) · cites this paper as Nussbaum (2008a)

  • Nussbaum (2008a) distinguished persuasive writing (goal to convince) from reflective writing (goal to explore and integrate sides).

    “Nussbaum (2008a) proposed a distinction between persuasive writing, where the goal is to convince another and to "win" an argument (which would be the object in a debate), and reflective writing, in which writers focus on exploring and integrating an issue's various sides to reach a reasoned conclusion.”

    From Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? (2020) · cites this paper as Nussbaum 2008a

  • Task complexity (a reflexive essay as opposed to a persuasive essay) (Nussbaum, 2008), students' initial synthesis writing strategy skills (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023), and their ability to use strategies for tackling the demands associated with planning and revising their essays (cf. Ferretti & Fan, 2016) may affect the impact of aids on synthesis quality.

    “On the one hand, task complexity -a reflexive essay as opposed to a persuasive essay- (Nussbaum, 2008), and on the other hand, students' initial synthesis writing strategy skills (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023), as well as their ability to use strategies for tackling the demands associated with planning and revising their essays (cf.Ferretti & Fan, 2016).”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Nussbaum, 2008

  • Prior to the intervention, half of the students wrote their synthesis adopting a stance, using what Nussbaum (2008) called 'one-sided reasoning', including arguments from a single source to argue in favour of their position (a Median score of 2).

    “Prior to the intervention, half of the students wrote their synthesis adopting a stance, using what Nussbaum (2008) called 'one-sided reasoning', including arguments from a single source to argue in favour of their position (a Median score of 2).”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Nussbaum (2008)

  • In studies by Nussbaum (2008), progress in the use of more integrative argumentation strategies (weighing and synthesis) was observed when students were given a pre-writing tool and participated in a group discussion, but disappeared when the graphic tool and group discussions were removed.

    “These results contrast with those obtained in studies by Nussbaum (2008) in which progress in the use of more integrative argumentation strategies (weighing and synthesis) was observed when students were given a pre-writing tool and participated in a group discussion, but disappeared when the graphic tool and group discussions were removed.”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Nussbaum (2008)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nussbaum, E. M.
Affiliations
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
Corresponding author
Nussbaum, E. Michael
ORCID
Nussbaum, E. Michael
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008-08
Volume
100
Issue
3
Pages
549-565
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
OpenAlex
W2044257079
Semantic Scholar
498928e2288eb7c31d5585d4c4ede3bd0bbb1ee3
Cited by
121
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
Keywords
reflective writing, opinion essays, critical questions, argumentation instruction

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