Argument diagramming and planning cognition in argumentative writing

481 Pages·2014·9.68 MB·English

by  Evangelia Chryssafidou

Argument diagramming
and planning cognition
in argumentative writing

Evangelia Chryssafidou

University of Birmingham

2014

Ph.D. Thesis
University of Birmingham Research Archive

e-theses repository

This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third
parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect
of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or
as modified by any successor legislation.

Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in
accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further
distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission
of the copyright holder.
Thought and speech is the same thing, but the
silently occurring inner dialogue of the soul with
itself has been specially given the name of thought

Plato, Sophist 263. Hall, 1967, p.386
Abstract
It is believed that argument diagramming can scaffold the process of argumentation.
However, only a few studies have investigated the impact of argument diagramming on the
quality of argumentative writing. This research contributed to this direction with two studies.
An exploratory study investigated the impact of argument diagramming, applied as a paper-
based or a computer-based method, on the quality of argumentative text. The latter was found
to increase refutation and overall quality of essays. The study highlights the significance of
writers’ argumentative ability for interpreting improvement.
A qualitative study looked into the impact of argument diagramming on the process of writing
cognition through analysis of online process data, diagrams and essays based on analysis of
sixteen undergraduate students. Writers with myside bias schema used the method to increase
counterarguments and refutations. The method assisted writers at lower level of pseudo-
integration to adopt more advanced strategies like weighing, and writers at middle level of
pseudo-integration to form sophisticated positions such as positions with qualifications or
contingent positions. Needs at higher levels of argumentative ability are not met.
Argument diagramming may accommodate the representation of weighing strategies but
cannot represent conciliatory positions. The support of writing planning processes through
argument diagramming affects mainly the semantic aspects of the text while the support of
linearization processes affects mainly the rhetorical aspects.
The analysis of interviews revealed that interacting with argument diagramming can improve
awareness of argumentation schema, hence a writer can progress from unaware, to aware-and-
lost and aware-but-oriented. Improvement is signified as being sensitised to the own
limitations, gaining knowledge of writing processes and the ability to self-regulate.
Acknowledgements
Working towards the completion of this doctorate thesis has been for me a character building
and life changing experience. True to the topic of this thesis I progressed, I think, emotionally
and intellectually, beyond the ‘myside’ approach and towards a more integrative place. I
developed my views through synthesis with other people’s views, as well as on the basis of
refuting countering opinions. I learnt to appreciate in life the value of conciliatory strategies
as well as the need for adversarial strategies. In this journey, many times I went through the
painful place of becoming aware of my own limitations; I was, then, relieved to find out that
there are different and better ways for doing things and coping with limitations; and, while I
was painstakingly trying them out, I found great joy in realising that it is possible to overcome
the limitations and that the new forthcoming challenges may not, after all, be so daunting.
This life changing journey would have not been possible without the people I encountered and
to whom I am eternally grateful.
I had the great fortune to meet two great supervisors. Dr Theo Arvanitis has been the greatest
facilitator in this journey and a great academic. Dr Mark Torrance has provided his
unconditional support, continuous encouragement and invaluable expertise in the research
area of writing.
The largest acknowledgement of gratitude goes to my partner George Tsekouras who gave the
strongest breath of life to my renewed effort to pursue the completion of this research. He
always believed that I would be able to complete this thesis, and made sure, with all the
means he had, that I believe it too. I am indebted to him for his emotional and intellectual
support throughout this challenging time.
I owe so many heartfelt thanks to my great friends in UK, Antigonos Sohos, Despina
Kanellou, Slavo Radocevic, Donia Scott, Giasemi Vavoula, Vivi Antonopoulou, and Prateek
Sureka for so fondly supporting me and cheering me so loudly during the long finishing line.
Another group of great friends from Greece has done the same despite the constraints of
physical distance: Ritsa Psylou, Ntina Sabrovalaki, Alexis, Baltsavias, and Chrisitna Danihl.
Last, but by no means least, my family deserves a truly special reference. They provided me
with consistent support and the securest and warmest shelter when things were difficult. My
mother has always encouraged me to be patient and persistent. My father has stirred in me the
drive to always be creative and think critically. My brother has always been there to provide
advice, consolation and an invaluably ‘cool’ frame of mind.
This project would have not been feasible without the financial support of the Greek
Government Scholarships Institution (IKY), the contribution of Mark Minas, University of
Erlangen, for providing the underlying architecture of the Dialectic Diagram Editor, and the
EISU at Birmingham University for integrating the evaluation study in the summer course.
I am grateful to the people in the research group CENTRIM of University of Brighton, for
providing a studying environment and for welcoming me in their community as a visiting
student.
I am also thankful to Dr David Davies and professor Khalid Khan, earlier work colleagues at
the Medical School of Birmingham University, and later on Dr Kaska Porayska-Pomsta at the
Institute of Education in London, who have also supported me during the writing up of the
thesis and showed great understanding when I was less available for work.
Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xvii
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation for research .................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Research questions ......................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Thesis outline ................................................................................................................ 12
Chapter 2 Theoretical review and previous research.................................................... 14
2.1 Argumentation Approaches and Models ...................................................................... 15
2.1.1 Analytic models _________________________________________________ 17
2.1.2 Strengths and weaknesses of analytic models __________________________ 18
2.1.3 Design-oriented models ___________________________________________ 19
2.1.4 Strengths and weaknesses of design-oriented argumentation models ________ 22
2.1.5 Models integrating the dialectical dimension ___________________________ 24
2.1.6 The pragma-dialectical approach ____________________________________ 27
2.1.7 Strengths and weaknesses of dialectic argumentation models ______________ 30
2.1.8 Scaffolding argumentation: the interaction between models and schemata ____ 31
2.2 Argumentation Schemata ............................................................................................. 32
2.2.1 The myside bias argumentation schema _______________________________ 34
2.2.2 The pseudo-integration argumentation schema _________________________ 34
2.2.3 The integration argumentation schema________________________________ 35
2.2.4 The synthesis argumentation schema _________________________________ 35
2.2.5 Semantic and rhetorical argumentation structure ________________________ 36
2.3 Cognitive process in argumentative writing ................................................................. 38
2.3.1 Towards argumentative models of writing _____________________________ 38
2.3.2 Planning strategies in writing _______________________________________ 40
2.3.3 Interaction between planning and writing _____________________________ 43
2.3.4 Argumentative writing process ______________________________________ 44
2.4 Metacognition in writing .............................................................................................. 46
2.5 Argument diagramming ................................................................................................ 49
2.5.1 Instructional perspectives in argumentation ____________________________ 49
2.5.2 Theoretical underpinning of argument diagramming _____________________ 51
2.5.3 Computer-supported argument diagramming ___________________________ 53
2.5.4 Computer and paper-based argument diagramming ______________________ 59
2.5.5 Impact of argument diagramming on argumentative writing _______________ 61
Chapter 3 Study 1: Impact of argument diagramming on quality of argumentative
writing 63
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 63
3.2 The Dialectic Method (DM) as a pre-writing method .................................................. 66
3.2.1 Dialectic diagram editor ___________________________________________ 67
3.2.2 The implementation of the Dialectic diagram editor _____________________ 69
3.2.3 The Checklist ___________________________________________________ 70
3.2.4 Feedback from the diagram editor ___________________________________ 71
3.3 Method of Study 1 ........................................................................................................ 71
3.3.1 Design _________________________________________________________ 71
3.3.2 Participants _____________________________________________________ 73
3.3.3 Academic setting of the evaluation study ______________________________ 73
3.3.4 Data collection __________________________________________________ 74
3.3.5 Training on the Dialectic Method ____________________________________ 74
3.4 Method for measuring the quality of argumentative essay........................................... 75
3.5 Overall quality .............................................................................................................. 76
3.5.1 Theoretical rationale ______________________________________________ 76
3.5.2 Analytic procedure _______________________________________________ 77
3.5.3 Evidence of reliability ____________________________________________ 80
3.6 Argument structure analysis ......................................................................................... 80
3.6.1 Theoretical rationale ______________________________________________ 80
3.6.2 Analytic procedure _______________________________________________ 86
3.6.3 Evidence of reliability and summary of measures _______________________ 92
3.7 Results .......................................................................................................................... 94
3.7.1 Data analysis ____________________________________________________ 94
3.7.2 Exploratory comparison at baseline _________________________________ 100
3.7.3 Computer group _________________________________________________ 95
3.7.4 Paper group _____________________________________________________ 96
3.7.5 Validity of discourse analysis _______________________________________ 98
3.8 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 102
3.9 Limitations of the study .............................................................................................. 106
3.10 The need for further research...................................................................................... 107
3.11 Concluding remarks .................................................................................................... 109
Chapter 4 Study 2: Rationale and methods ................................................................. 111
4.1 Rationale of study design and methodology............................................................... 111
4.1.1 Structure of methodology chapter __________________________________ 113
4.2 Design of Study 2 ....................................................................................................... 114
4.2.1 Participant recruitment ___________________________________________ 114
4.2.2 Argument diagramming editor _____________________________________ 115
4.2.3 Task _________________________________________________________ 116
4.2.4 Essay topics ___________________________________________________ 119
4.2.5 Training in argument diagramming _________________________________ 120
4.2.6 Experimental set up _____________________________________________ 120
4.2.7 Think aloud talk as process data ____________________________________ 122
4.2.8 The 6 point criteria list ___________________________________________ 122
4.2.9 Capturing process data on video ____________________________________ 124
4.2.10 Interviews _____________________________________________________ 125
4.3 Essay analysis methodology ....................................................................................... 126
4.3.1 Theoretical rationale _____________________________________________ 126
4.3.2 Analytic procedure Level 1: Application of RST analysis ________________ 130
4.3.3 Incoherence issues ______________________________________________ 146
4.3.4 Argument structure schemata (level 2) _______________________________ 147
4.3.5 Adversary and conciliatory strategies________________________________ 154
4.3.6 Identification of crucial changes in text (level 3) _______________________ 154
4.4 Methodology of analysing the planning and linearizing process in writing
argumentative essays .............................................................................................................. 156
4.4.1 Video transcription ______________________________________________ 156
4.4.2 Dimensions of planning products ___________________________________ 162
4.4.3 Segmentation of transcripts in process episodes _______________________ 166
4.4.4 Summary of the process episodes and overall comparison _______________ 167
4.4.5 Focused interpretation of text change through process episodes ___________ 169
4.5 Limitations of methodology ....................................................................................... 171
Chapter 5 Study 2: Findings and discussion ................................................................ 172
5.1 Coherence of argumentative essays ............................................................................ 173
5.2 Semantic structure of argumentation .......................................................................... 174
5.3 Rhetorical structure of argumentation ........................................................................ 176
5.4 Presentation of results ................................................................................................. 178
5.5 Myside bias (MSB) group .......................................................................................... 179
5.5.1 Myside Bias group: baseline text ___________________________________ 179
5.5.2 Myside Bias group: text change ____________________________________ 183
5.5.3 Myside Bias group: process change _________________________________ 186
5.5.4 Comparison of the Myside Bias group _______________________________ 196
5.5.1 Concluding remarks for the Myside Bias group ________________________ 199
5.6 Low Pseudo-integration group ................................................................................... 201
5.6.1 Low Pseudo-integration group: baseline text __________________________ 201
5.6.2 Low Pseudo-integration group: text change ___________________________ 202
5.6.3 Low Pseudo-integration group: process change ________________________ 207
5.6.4 Concluding remarks for the Low Pseudo-integration group ______________ 218
5.7 Middle Pseudo- integration group .............................................................................. 225
5.7.1 Middle Pseudo-integration group: baseline text ________________________ 225
5.7.2 Middle Pseudo- integration group: text change ________________________ 226
5.7.3 Middle Pseudo- integration group: process change _____________________ 232
5.7.4 Concluding remarks for the Middle Pseudo-integration group ____________ 251
5.8 High Pseudo integration group ................................................................................... 255
5.8.1 High Pseudo-integration group: baseline text _________________________ 255
5.8.2 High Pseudo-integration group: text change __________________________ 256
5.8.3 High Pseudo-integration group: process change _______________________ 260
5.8.4 Concluding remarks for the High Pseudo-integration group ______________ 270
5.9 Integration group ........................................................................................................ 272
5.9.1 Integration group: baseline text ____________________________________ 272
5.9.2 Integration group: text change _____________________________________ 278
5.9.3 Integration group: process at baseline _______________________________ 280
5.9.4 Integration group: process change __________________________________ 288
5.9.5 Comparison of the Integration group ________________________________ 305
5.9.6 Concluding remarks for the Integration group _________________________ 305
5.10 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 308
Chapter 6 Study 2: Interviews ....................................................................................... 312