Advertisement

Using ENA to Analyze Pre-service Teachers’ Diagnostic Argumentations: A Conceptual Framework and Initial Applications

  • Elisabeth BauerEmail author
  • Michael Sailer
  • Jan Kiesewetter
  • Claudia Schulz
  • Jonas Pfeiffer
  • Iryna Gurevych
  • Martin R. Fischer
  • Frank Fischer
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)

Abstract

Diagnostic argumentation can be decomposed referring to the dimensions of content (see Toulmin 2003) and explicated strategy use indicated by epistemic activities (see Fischer et al. 2014). We propose a conceptual framework to analyze these two dimensions within diagnostic argumentation and explore its use within initial applications using the method of Epistemic Network Analysis (Shaffer 2017). The results indicate that both approaches of solely analyzing the dimension of content and solely analyzing the dimension of epistemic activities offer less insights into diagnostic argumentations than an analysis that includes both dimensions.

Keywords

Diagnosing Argumentation Pre-service teachers 

References

  1. Berland, L.K., Reiser, B.J.: Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Sci. Educ. 93(1), 26–55 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H., Custers, E.J., Feltovich, P.J.: Scripts and clinical reasoning. Med. Educ. 41(12), 1178–1184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coderre, S., Mandin, H., Harasym, P.H., Fick, G.H.: Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Med. Educ. 37(8), 695–703 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Kollar, I., Shaffer, D.W., Fischer, F.: When coding-and-counting is not enough: using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 13(4), 419–438 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer, F., et al.: Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learn. Res. 2(3), 28–45 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. Gartmeier, M., et al.: Fostering professional communication skills of future physicians and teachers: effects of e-learning with video cases and role-play. Instr. Sci. 43(4), 443–462 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hetmanek, A., Engelmann, K., Opitz, A., Fischer, F.: Beyond intelligence and domain knowledge. Scientific reasoning and argumentation as a set of cross-domain skills. In: Fischer, F., Chinn, C.A., Engelmann, K., Osborne, J. (eds.) Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: The Roles of Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge, pp. 203–226. Routledge, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  8. Lawson, A.E., Daniel, E.S.: Inferences of clinical diagnostic reasoning and diagnostic error. J. Biomed. Inform. 44(3), 402–412 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E.A., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., Kafouris, D.: A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of evidence. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48(7), 711–744 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schulz, C., et al.: Challenges in the Automatic Analysis of Students’ Diagnostic Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10550 (2018)
  11. Shaffer, D. W.: Quantitative ethnography. Cathcart Press, Madison (2017)Google Scholar
  12. Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Bauer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Sailer
    • 1
  • Jan Kiesewetter
    • 2
  • Claudia Schulz
    • 3
  • Jonas Pfeiffer
    • 3
  • Iryna Gurevych
    • 3
  • Martin R. Fischer
    • 2
  • Frank Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.University HospitalLudwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Technical University of DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations