The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing.
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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 the citing paper
“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)
Citations
Cites
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488
Theory of games and economic behavior
Garcia, S. R., & Miller, S. J. (2019) · American Mathematical Society eBooks · doi:10.1090/mbk/121/32 · Cited by 16,777
Hapeman, D. E., & Agresti, A. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1991.10484817 · Cited by 9,407
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Kahle, J. B. (1984) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173469 · Cited by 5,199
Brown, A. L. (1992) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · Cited by 4,000
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., Wilkinson, J., & Weaver, P. (1971) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,349
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
Driver, R., Newton, P. E., & Osborne, J. F. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3 · Cited by 2,339
The Adaptive Character of Thought
Massaro, D. W., Friedman, D., & Anderson, J. R. (1991) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423253 · Cited by 2,174
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Baron, J. A. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009263672 · Cited by 1,434
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20012 · Cited by 1,408
Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic.
Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.1.75 · Cited by 1,352
Intellectual development : birth to adulthood
Case, R. (1985) · Academic Press eBooks · Cited by 1,345
Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-0733 · Cited by 1,094
Best Practices in Quantitative Methods
Osborne, J. W. (2008) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412995627 · Cited by 1,065
Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition
D., C. P., & Mayer, R. E. (1984) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422612 · Cited by 997
Comprehension instruction : research-based best practices
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. G. (2002) · Cited by 958
Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis.
Smith, C. P. (1992) · Cited by 680
Optimal Predictions in Everyday Cognition
Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01780.x · Cited by 661
Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/095006900412284 · Cited by 657
A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition
McCutchen, D. (1996) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf01464076 · Cited by 654
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001 · Cited by 605
Reconstructing argumentative discourse.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. A., et al. (1993) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 575
The mind's staircase: exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children's thought and knowledge
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-6574 · Cited by 540
Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument
Johnson, R. H. (2000) · Cited by 531
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312043002295 · Cited by 509
The Role of Central Conceptual Structures in the Development of Children's Thought
Case, R., Okamoto, Y., Griffin, S., McKeough, A., Bleiker, C., Henderson, B., Stephenson, K. M., Siegler, R. S., & Keating, D. P. (1996) · Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development · doi:10.2307/1166077 · Cited by 489
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(99)00013-4 · Cited by 435
The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building
Leitão, S. (2000) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000022695 · Cited by 433
An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199808)35:6 · Cited by 359
The Development of Argumentive Discourse Skill
Felton, M. K., & Kuhn, D. (2001) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651595 · Cited by 353
Conceptual/integrative complexity
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527937.028 · Cited by 318
Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S. L., & Chen, C. (1998) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069980200707 · Cited by 312
Handbook of Educational Psychology
Alexander, P. A., & WINNE, P. H. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203874790 · Cited by 310
Walton, D. (1995) · Cited by 294
Paz, S. D. L. (2005) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139 · Cited by 291
Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 282
The Effects of Goal Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During Writing.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 · Cited by 279
Self-citationPromoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.3200/jexe.76.1.59-92 · Cited by 279
Self-citationDialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments
Freeman, J. B. (1991) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110875843 · Cited by 271
The Snowball Phenomenon: Spread of Ways of Talking and Ways of Thinking Across Groups of Children
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen‐Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S. Y., Reznitskaya, A., Tillmanns, M. D., & Gilbert, L. (2001) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1901_1 · Cited by 271
Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651596 · Cited by 271
Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing
Coirier, P., & Andriessen, J. E. B. (2000) · Amsterdam University Press eBooks · doi:10.5117/9789053563403 · Cited by 260
Kuhn, D. (1986) · Teachers College Record · doi:10.1177/016146818608700404 · Cited by 256
Paul, R. W., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1997) · Cited by 248
Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology
O’Donnell, A. M., Hmelo‐Silver, C. E., & Erkens, G. (2005) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203826843 · Cited by 243
Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10004 · Cited by 211
Thinking, problem solving, cognition, 2nd ed.
Mayer, R. E. (1992) · Cited by 209
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694 · Cited by 188
Assessing Critical Thinking in the Writing of Japanese University Students
Stapleton, P. (2001) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088301018004004 · Cited by 163
Judging the Quality of Peer-Led Student Dialogues
Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. Β. (2000) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1801_03 · Cited by 144
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1991) · Phi Delta Kappan · Cited by 133
Empowering Education: Teaching Argumentative Writing to Cultural Minority Middle-School Students
Yeh, S. S. (1998) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte19983912 · Cited by 129
Practical reasoning: goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5046 · Cited by 110
The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation
Nussbaum, E. M. (2005) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.002 · Cited by 102
Self-citationWriting to Learn Across the Curriculum: Tools for Comprehension in Content Area Classes
Knipper, K. J., & Duggan, T. J. (2006) · The Reading Teacher · doi:10.1598/rt.59.5.5 · Cited by 95
Russell, T. L. (1983) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660200104 · Cited by 93
Discourse Patterns During Children's Collaborative Online Discussions
Kim, I., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen‐Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508400701413419 · Cited by 90
Fourth and Fifth Graders Representing the Argument Structure in Written Texts
Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3401_4 · Cited by 73
On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments
Willard, C. A. (1976) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637757609375942 · Cited by 64
Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics
Næss, A., & Hannay, A. (1968) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 62
Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions
Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. (2007) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9025-1 · Cited by 62
Self-citationTeaching the Argument in Writing
Fulkerson, R. P. (1997) · College Composition and Communication · doi:10.2307/358415 · Cited by 58
Arguments about Arguments: Systematic, Critical, and Historical Essays In Logical Theory
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005) · Cited by 58
Informal Logic: Issues and Techniques
Grennan, W. (1997) · Cited by 46
Vorobej, M. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498879 · Cited by 44
An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand
Knudson, R. E. (1994) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638539409544892 · Cited by 41
Assessing argumentation skills among finnish university students
Marttunen, M. J. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90010-8 · Cited by 38
Good argument, content and contextual dimensions
Santos, C. M. A. (1999) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 32
Best Practices in Analysis of Longitudinal Data: A Multilevel Approach
Tan, F. E. S. (2008) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412995627.d36 · Cited by 30
Halford, G., & McCredden, J. (1998) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(97)00023-6 · Cited by 29
Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004) · International Conference of Learning Sciences · doi:10.22318/icls2004.310 · Cited by 27
Argumentation Structure and Metacognition in Constructing Shared Knowledge at School.
Masón, L., & Santi, M. (1994) · Cited by 26
Inviting Constructive Argument
Mallin, I., & Anderson, K. V. (2000) · Argumentation and Advocacy · doi:10.1080/00028533.2000.11951643 · Cited by 19
Reading, Writing, Thinking: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Reading.
Pandis, M., Ward, A., & Mathews, S. R. (2005) · Cited by 4
Broadening the Repertoire: Alternatives to the Argumentative Edge.
Kroll, B. M. (2000) · Freshman English news · Cited by 3
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 · Cited by 338
“Encouraging student questioning has been identified as pivotal in this regard (Chin & Osborne, 2010; Golanics & Nussbaum, 2008; Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialNoroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006 · Cited by 310
“Having adequate background knowledge of the issue could enhance the quality of collaborative argumentation (Golanics & Nussbaum, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialCollaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001 · Cited by 303
Self-citationKuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.830618 · Cited by 247
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558816 · Cited by 222
“AVDs were developed by Nussbaum (2008b) and further developed by Nussbaum, Winsor, Aqui, and Poliquin (2007) and Nussbaum and Edwards (in press).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Metadata
- 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
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 549-565
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- 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
