Argument structure training did not generally improve component identification, but specifically improved identification of warrants at posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Training in argument structure did not generally improve posttest or follow-up performance compared with the speed-reading control. → Sarah von der Mühlen 2019 q3 i? A significant effect of training condition emerged for identifying warrants at posttest, with the training group outperforming the control group. → 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 · r2

Nested multiple regression (Model 1, N = 50) on posttest and follow-up accuracy controlling for pretest accuracy found no overall training effect. No significant differences emerged for claims, reasons, or rebuttals (all p > .05, one-tailed).

"The results for Model 1 (Table 1) showed that training in argument structure did not generally improve performance in the posttest or follow-up, p > .05."

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 · r1

Component-level regression analysis at posttest in the same experiment. The argument structure training group identified warrants more accurately (M = .64) than the speed-reading control group (M = .41); B = 0.11, p < .001, one-tailed, ΔR2 = .09.

"a significant effect of training condition was revealed for the ability to identify warrants (B = 0.11, SE = 0.04, p < .001, one-tailed, ΔR2 = .09), with significantly improved accuracy values in the argument structure training group (M = .64, SE = .06), as compared to the speed-reading training group (M = .41, SE = .06)."

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 improved identification of atypical full-fledged arguments at posttest, but not at the 4-week follow-up — related
• Argument structure training increased students' self-reported confidence with the Toulmin model — 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