Advertisement

Student Performance in Identifying Unexpressed Premisses and Argumentation Schemes

  • Frans H. van EemerenEmail author
  • Kees de Glopper
  • Rob Grootendorst
  • Ron Oostdam
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 27)

Abstract

An adequate evaluation of argumentation starts from an analytic overview of the argumentative discourse. In such an overview, among other things, the unexpressed premisses and the relevant argumentation schemes are identified (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, 1992). The extent to which ordinary language users are capable of carrying out such identifications can only be answered by the use of empirical research. Here, we report about our empirical investigations on the performances of students in Dutch secondary education.

Keywords

School Type Analogy Argumentation Argumentation Scheme Major Premiss Logical Minimum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Appelbee, A., Langer, J., & Mullins, I. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton: National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  2. Borg, I. (1979). Some basic concepts of facet theory. In J. Lingoes (Ed.), Geometric representations of relational data (pp. 65–102). Ann Arbor: Mathesis Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Elley, W. (1992). How in the world do children read?. The Hague: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  5. Hägglund, G. (1982). Factor analysis by instrumental variables methods. Psychometrika, 47(2), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mellenbergh, G. J., Kelderman, H., Stijlen, J. G., & Zondag, E. (1979). Linear models for the analysis and construction of instruments in a facet design. Psychological Bulletin, 86(4), 766–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Oostdam, R. J. (1990). Empirical research on the identification of singular, multiple, and subordinate argumentation. Argumentation, 4, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Oostdam, R. J. (1991). Argumentatie in de peiling: een aanbod-en prestatiepeiling van argumentatievaardigheden in het voortgezet onderwijs. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Oostdam, R. J., & Eiting, M. H. (1991). The measurement of receptive argumentation skills; the identification of points of view in single and multiple disputes. In F. H. van Eemeren, R.Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 663–671). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  11. Oostdam, R. J., & Emmelot, Y. W. (1991). Education in argumentation skills at Dutch secondary schools. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1121–1126). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  12. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Thorndike, R. L. (1973). Reading comprehension education in fifteen countries. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Toulmin, S. E. (1969). The uses of argument (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion (Vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25, 239–245.Google Scholar
  19. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Windes, R. R., & Hastings, A. C. (1969). Argumentation and advocacy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kees de Glopper
    • 1
  • Rob Grootendorst
    • 1
  • Ron Oostdam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations