Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 221-249

  von der Mühlen, Sarah ^a   Richter, Tobias ^a   Schmid, Sebastian ^b   Schmidt, Elisabeth Marie ^c   Berthold, Kirsten ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^c BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

competences in higher education; epistemic competences; Informal argument evaluation; mental model theory; think aloud procedure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957846277     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2015.1127289     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. T.Amstad, (1978). Wie verständlich sind unsere Zeitungen? [How understandable are our newspapers?] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Zürich, Switzerland.
2. B.B.Armbruster, T.H.Anderson, & J.L.Meyer, (1991). Improving content area reading using instructional graphics. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 393–416.
3. R.M.Baron, & D.A.Kenny, (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
4. D.Bates, M.Maechler, B.Bolker, S.Walker, R.H.B.Christensen, & H.Sigmann, (2014). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 [Software]. R-package version 1.1-6. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
5. J.A.Blair, & R.H.Johnson, (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.
6. J.L.G.Braasch, S.R.Goldman, & J.Wiley, (2013). The influences of text and reader characteristics on learning from refutations in science texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 561–578.
7. M.A.Britt, & A.Larson, (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 749–810.
8. M.A.Britt, T.Richter, & J.-F.Rouet, (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104–122.
9. M.J.Chambliss, (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778–807.
10. M.T.H.Chi, M.Bassok, M.W.Lewis, P.Reimann, & R.Glaser, (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
11. F.W.Dauer, (1989). Critical thinking: An introduction to reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12. P.Dixon, (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447–456.
13. J.A.Dole, G.G.Duffy, L.R.Roehler, & P.D.Pearson, (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.
14. K.A.Ericsson, R.T.Krampe, & C.Tesch-Römer, (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
15. J.S.B.T.Evans, J. St. B. T., S.E.Newstead, & R.M.J.Byrne, (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. F.Faul, E.Erdfelder, A.-G.Lang, & A.Buchner, (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
17. R.Fuchs, & R.Schwarzer, (1997). Tabakkonsum: Erklärungsmodelle und Interventionsansätze [Tobacco consumption: Explanations and interventions]. In R.Schwarzer (Ed.), Gesundheitspsychologie: Ein Lehrbuch [Health psychology: A textbook] (pp. 209–244). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
18. K.M.Galotti, (1989). Approaches to studying deductive and everyday reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 331–351.
19. D.W.Green, (1994). Induction: Representation, strategy and argument. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8, 45–50.
20. M.H.Hefter, K.Berthold, A.Renkl, W.Rieß, S.Schmid, & S.Fries, (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42, 929–947.
21. M.H.Hefter, A.Renkl, W.Rieß, S.Schmid, S.Fries, & K.Berthold, (2015). Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values. Learning and Instruction, 38, 11–22.
22. H.Hoeken, R.Timmers, & P.J.Schellens, (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 394–416.
23. H.Hoeken, & van Vugt. (2014). Het bevooroordeelde gebruik van argumentatieschemaspecifieke criteria: Hangt argumentkwaliteit af van het standpunt van de gebruiker? [The biased use of evaluation criteria in argumentation: Does argument quality depend on the user's attitude?]. Tijdschrift voor taalbeheersing, 36, 87–105.
24. S.Holm, (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
25. J.Hornikx, & U.Hahn, (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 225–243.
26. J.Hornikx, & H.Hoeken, (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443–463.
27. J.Hornikx, & M.ter Haar, (2013). Evidence quality and persuasiveness: Germans are not sensitive to the quality of statistical evidence. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 483–501.
28. HyperCam. (Version 2.28.01) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://de.hyperionics.com/
29. Inquisit. (Version 3.0.6.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.millisecond.com/
30. B.T.Johnson, A.Smith-McLallen, L.A.Killeya, & K.D.Levin, (2004). Truth or consequences: Overcoming resistance with positive thinking. In E.S.Knowles & J.A.Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 215–233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. P.N.Johnson-Laird, (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. P.N.Johnson-Laird, & R.M.J.Byrne, (1992). Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Kuhn. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.
34. A.A.Larson, M.A.Britt, & C.Kurby, (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339–365.
35. D.P.MacKinnon, & J.H.Dwyer, (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158.
36. D.P.MacKinnon, C.M.Lockwood, J.M.Hoffman, S.G.West, & V.Sheets, (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
37. D.P.MacKinnon, C.M.Lockwood, & J.Williams, (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
38. J.P.Magliano, & K.K.Millis, (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition & Instruction, 3, 251–283.
39. J.Maier, & T.Richter, (2013). Understanding conflicting information on social science issues. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 14–26.
40. R.Mayer, (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59, 43–64.
41. E.J.O'Brien, & J.L.Myers, (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S.R.Goldman, A.C.Graesser, & P.van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence (pp. 35–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. D.N.Perkins, (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. D.N.Perkins, M.Farady, & B.Bushey, (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J.F.Voss, D.N.Perkins, & J.W.Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. P.Prüfer, & M.Rexroth, (2000). Zwei–Phasen Pretesting [Two-phase pretesting]. ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht 2000/08 [ZUMA working paper No. 2000/08]. Mannheim: ZUMA.
45. R.Ratcliff, (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.
46. T.Richter, & S.Schmid, (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemicstrategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47–65.
47. T.Richter, S.Schroeder, & B.Wöhrmann, (2009). You don't have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538–558.
48. J.-F.Rouet, M.Favart, M.A.Britt, & C.A.Perfetti, (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85–106.
49. S.Schroeder, T.Richter, & I.Hoever, (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237–255.
50. F.W.Shaw, (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51–80.
51. J.P.Selig, & K.J.Preacher, (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/
52. K.E.Stanovich, (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. K.E.Stanovich, (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: Implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In K.Holyoak & R.Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 343–365). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54. S.E.Toulmin, (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
55. P.W.Van den Broek, K.Risden, & E.Husebye-Hartman, (1995). The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R.F.Lorch, Jr. & E.J.O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. T.A.Van Dijk, & W.Kintsch, (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
57. F.H.Van Eemeren, B.Garssen, & B.Meuffels, (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.
58. F.H.Van Eemeren, B.Garssen, & B.Meuffels, (2012). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364.
59. F.H.van Eemeren, R.Grootendorst, F.S.Henkemans, J.A.Blair, R.H.Johnson, E.C.W.Krabbe, … D.Zarefsky, (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
60. S.von der Mühlen,., T.Richter, S.Schmid, E.M.Schmidt, & K.Berthold, (2015). The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiplepsychology texts: A student-scientist comparison. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9601-0.
61. J.F.Voss, & M.L.Means, (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350.
62. J.Wiley, & J.F.Voss, (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.
63. C.R.Wolfe, M.A.Britt, & J.A.Butler, (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183–209.
64. Y.-T.Wu, & C.-C.Tsai, (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163–1187.
65. D.Wyatt, M.Pressley, P.B.El-Dinary, S.Stein, P.Evans, & R.Brown, (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and credibility monitoring, and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when scientists read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 49–72.