1 / 21

Argument Analysis Robert Asen and Deb Gurke William T. Grant Foundation Dec. 17, 2009

Argument Analysis Robert Asen and Deb Gurke William T. Grant Foundation Dec. 17, 2009. Basic Definitions. Argument as Product. A discrete, justified position consisting of premises, a conclusion, evidence, warrants, and values. Argument as Product. WARRANT. CONCLUSION. PREMISE. Evidence.

owena
Download Presentation

Argument Analysis Robert Asen and Deb Gurke William T. Grant Foundation Dec. 17, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Argument AnalysisRobert Asen and Deb GurkeWilliam T. Grant FoundationDec. 17, 2009

  2. Basic Definitions

  3. Argument as Product A discrete, justified position consisting of premises, a conclusion, evidence, warrants, and values.

  4. Argument as Product WARRANT CONCLUSION PREMISE Evidence Value

  5. Argument as Process An exchange of viewpoints enacting a process of reason-giving and evidence-sharing.

  6. Argument in Public Deliberation A social, temporally extended discourse practice incorporating products and processes of argument.

  7. Purpose of Argument Analysis Argument analysis identifies the components of argument as product to determine their function and significance in processes of argument and public deliberation.

  8. Key Questions

  9. • What are the components of an argument? • How do the components of an argument function? • Why do advocates advance particular arguments?

  10. Overview of Method

  11. Step 1 Code meeting transcripts for evidence types (research, practitioner knowledge, student data, etc.)

  12. Step 2 Go back to instances of research evidence and identify components of argument as product. Analyze how these components function.

  13. Step 3 Consider how components function in processes of argument by comparing arguments within a meeting.

  14. Step 4 Look for patterns in public deliberation by comparing arguments and research use across meetings and districts.

  15. Argument Analysis Exemplified

  16. A teacher in Beloit, WI, speaking in favor of extending advanced placement courses from two to three terms: “Due to budget cuts, the amount of time that we get to teach the course was reduced by a whole quarter and, um, although the enrollment has gone up, the number of students taking the AP test is going down, which is, is a bit disconcerting to me. And, after interviewing those students, they reported that they did not feel prepared to take the test, and it would take large amounts of time—of their own—to study, without any of my help to do it, so they just decided not to take the test. Statistics show that taking an AP class does help students become better students in college. The University of Texas came out with a study last year which showed that students who took AP tests were much more likely to succeed as freshman, so that’s an important factor.”

  17. Components of this argument PREMISE Students who take AP tests are more likely to succeed as freshman. WARRANT We want students to take the AP test. CONCLUSION We should expand our AP courses to three terms. PREMISE Students will have more time to prepare for the AP test. + Evidence Student Interviews Evidence UT Study Value Achievement

  18. Function of the research evidence • Vagueness: no reference to authors, sample, finding, etc. • Important simply because it is a study. • Functions less for its specifics and more to establish the credibility of the speaker. • Presents a potentially problematic causal claim about the relationship between test-taking and success in college.

  19. A staff member in Elmbrook, WI, addressing the benefits of mixed-ability classes in science: “What cooperative learning research tells us, is that while it’s good to provide opportunities through the course of the year for, like, um, similar interest, etcetera, the greatest amount of advancement in learning comes with, um, heterogeneous groups – so mixed groups – of ability. The key part is making certain that there are key targets and responsibility for students, so that it’s not the expectation – it’s the expectation of the teacher to be teaching all the students and providing guidelines, not looking to the bright kids to pull along those kids that struggle more. It’s, it’s providing those targets and instructions for all kids, but it – research shows us when you have a mixed group, you will have greater learning going on.”

  20. Components of this argument WARRANT We want all of our students to learn CONCLUSION We should combine honors and non-honors science classes PREMISE The greatest learning comes in mixed-ability groups. Evidence Cooperative learning research Value Achievement, equity

  21. Function of the research evidence • The staff member does not cite specific studies, but “research” as a whole. • Research is made to speak with one voice. • Elides differences and disagreements among research in a subfield. • Presenting research as univocal discourages others present at the meeting from questioning the benefits of mixed-ability classes. • Later in the meeting, a committee member retorts that “jury’s out on cooperative learning.”

More Related