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
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
