Argument structure training improved identification of atypical full-fledged arguments at posttest, but not at the 4-week follow-up¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? At posttest, the training group identified atypical, full-fledged arguments more accurately than the control group. → Sarah von der Mühlen 2019 q3 i? No training effects on atypical argument identification were found at follow-up. → Sarah von der Mühlen 2019 (2)

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 · r1

Model 2 of the nested regression on posttest accuracy (N = 50), controlling for pretest accuracy and study performance. The experimental group reached M = .68 versus M = .53 in the control condition for atypical full-fledged arguments.

"Model 2 revealed a main effect of training condition for the identification of atypical, full-fledged arguments (B = 0.08, SE = 0.03, p < .01, ΔR2 = .09, one-tailed), with participants in the experimental condition receiving higher posttest accuracies (M = .68, SE = .04), as compared to those in the control condition (M = .53, SE = .04)."

Sarah von der Mühlen 2019 (2)¶

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?

Follow-up test 4 weeks after the posttest in the same experiment showed no significant training effects on identifying atypical full-fledged arguments; equivalence was not tested.

"Unexpectedly, however, no such effects were found in the follow-up, p > .05."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Atypical full-fledged arguments are harder to identify than typical full-fledged arguments, which are harder than three-component arguments — related
• Argument structure training did not generally improve component identification, but specifically improved identification of warrants at posttest — related
• Pretest accuracy moderated the training effect for typical full-fledged arguments: students with high pretest scores benefited most — related
• Study performance moderated the training effect: high-achieving students benefited at posttest, low performers did not — related