Learning to Use Benefit-Cost Arguments: A Microgenetic Study of Argument-Counterargument Integration in an Undergraduate Seminar Course

• Published in: Journal of educational psychology 2020-04, Vol.112 (3), p.444-465
• Main Authors: Nussbaum, E. Michael, Putney, LeAnn G
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic Writing; Arguments; College Instruction; College students; Controversial Issues (Course Content); Cost benefit analysis; Cost Effectiveness; Costs and Cost Analysis; Critical Thinking; Educational psychology; Ethics; Genetics; Graphical Displays; Human; Instructional Effectiveness; Instructional Materials; Male; Morality; Persuasive Communication; Persuasive Discourse; Reasoning; Seminars; Student Development; Teaching methods; Test Construction; Undergraduate Education; Undergraduate Students; Writing (Composition)
• ISSN: 0022-0663; 1939-2176
• DOI: 10.1037/edu0000412

This microgenetic case study explores how an undergraduate student (Nolan) in a second-year seminar mastered an argument weighing scheme and used it to organize his writing. The students in this seminar completed argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) prior to discussing controversial issues. Students also completed preessays and postessays on a different topic without using AVDs. Through the AVDs, students were provided with critical, evaluative questions related to designing solutions and weighing arguments against counterarguments. In separate work, we report that the intervention was effective in increasing the number of refutations related to the critical questions (Nussbaum & Dove, 2018). Nolan showed particularly strong growth, and this case study analyzes his discourse to generate qualitative insights and hypotheses into his development. Using the conceptual framework of argument-counterargument integration (Nussbaum, 2008b), we analyzed Nolan's written artifacts and discussions to better understand how his proficiency with using the argument scheme developed over time. Our results suggest that Nolan initially displayed piecemeal use of the scheme, but over time, Nolan learned to articulate general principles and to integrate these with specific points regarding benefits and costs, as well as with solution-oriented design statements that further reduced disadvantages. Use of the scheme spontaneously transferred to a novel topic. Extensive engagement in ethical discussions, along with studying ethical theory and answering critical questions on AVDs, may have contributed to his development. Theoretical and practical implications related to teaching argumentative writing in conjunction with oral discourse are discussed. Educational Impact and Implications Statement The article examines how the written arguments of an undergraduate sophomore (Nolan) improved to incorporate general principles related to weighing pros and cons during argumentation. Conducted in a general education seminar, students-prior to discussing controversial issues-completed graphic organizers with questions designed to evaluate the strength of arguments. Students also studied basic ethical theory and debated ethical issues that afforded students with practice in weighing factors relating to argument strength. We develop a hypothesis that such practice-in combination with the graphic organizers containing evaluative questions-made it easier for Nolan to weigh arguments and to grasp the