Atypical full-fledged arguments are harder to identify than typical full-fledged arguments, which are harder than three-component arguments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? At pretest, atypical full-fledged arguments were identified less accurately than typical full-fledged arguments, which were in turn harder than arguments with only three components. → Sarah von der Mühlen 2019

Evidence¶

Sarah von der Mühlen 2019¶

Sarah von der Mühlen, Tobias Richter, Sebastian Schmid, Kirsten Berthold. (2019). How to improve argumentation comprehension in university students: experimental test of a training approach. Instructional Science 47:215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9471-3

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Pretest accuracy analysis in the experiment with 53 psychology students before any training. Accuracy was lowest for atypical full-fledged arguments (M = .52), intermediate for typical full-fledged arguments (M = .68), and highest for three-component arguments (M = .89), supporting Hypothesis 1.

"Atypical, full-fledged arguments (M = .52, SE = .04) were more difficult to identify than typical, full-fledged arguments (M = .68, SE = .05), p < .001, which, again, were more challenging than arguments with only three components (M = .89, SE = .03), p < .001."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Argument structure training improved identification of atypical full-fledged arguments at posttest, but not at the 4-week follow-up — related
• Pretest accuracy moderated the training effect for typical full-fledged arguments: students with high pretest scores benefited most — related
• Argument structure training did not generally improve component identification, but specifically improved identification of warrants at posttest — related
• Study performance moderated the training effect: high-achieving students benefited at posttest, low performers did not — related