This activity aims to assist students with persuasive tactics for argumentative speeches. The activity involves students creating an argumentative speech to defend a hot-take assertion chosen from a list provided by the instructor. In small groups, students will craft an argument supporting their hot-take assertion and present it to the class.…

The present study examined how argument type (science based vs. personal case based), belief consistency (belief consistent vs. inconsistent) and reading goals (read to evaluate vs. read to learn) influence comprehension and trustworthiness evaluations for claim-conflicting multiple texts. Undergraduates read four conflicting texts about the…

Learning to interpret data in context is an important educational outcome. To assess students' attainment of this outcome, it is necessary to examine the interplay between their contextual and statistical reasoning. We describe a research method designed to do so. The method draws upon Toulmin's (1958, 2003) model of argumentation for the first…

This study examines three core processes in undergraduates' reasoning about four different evidence types (i.e., anecdotal, observational, correlational, and causal). In particular, we examine undergraduates' processes of evidence identification, evaluation, and selection of evidence to include in writing and how these manifest across different…

How do people come to opposite causal judgments about societal problems, such as whether a public health policy reduced COVID-19 cases? The current research tests an understudied cognitive mechanism in which people may agree about what "actually" happened (e.g., that a public health policy was implemented and COVID-19 cases declined),…

This experimental study explores how source use features impact raters' judgment of argumentation in a second language (L2) integrated writing test. One hundred four experienced and novice raters were recruited to complete a rating task that simulated the scoring assignment of a local English Placement Test (EPT). Sixty written responses were…

The aim of this study was to reveal 5th class middle school students' determination skills on the truth value of mathematical propositions about multiplication and division. These skills were evaluated in the context of operation meanings preferred and arguments constructed by the students in the process. The research group consisted of 95…

Recent trends have shifted the focus of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education onto practice-based learning, to encourage opportunities for students to engage in science and engineering practices (SEPs) with the goal of more meaningful participation and engagement in authentic STEM experiences for all students. However,…

In collaborative problem solving, children produce and evaluate arguments for proposals. We investigated whether 3- and 5-year-olds (N = 192) can produce and evaluate arguments against those arguments (i.e., counter-arguments). In Study 1, each child within a peer dyad was privately given a reason to prefer one over another solution to a task. One…

Background: Argumentation, that is the coordination of evidence and reasons to support claims, is an important skill for democratic society, developing subject-specific literacies, and can be embedded in multiple school subjects. While argumentation has been extensively researched in science education, interdisciplinary argumentation is less…

Research has shown that laypeople tend to rely on their own evaluations when encountering scientific text information that is easy to comprehend. This easiness effect of science popularization leaves them vulnerable to uncritically accepting misinformation presented in a simplified manner. The present study investigated whether warnings of…

Consumers are exposed to large amounts of advertising every day. One way to avoid being manipulated is to monitor the sources of persuasive messages. In the present study it was tested whether high exposure to advertising affects the memory and guessing processes underlying source attributions. Participants were exposed to high or low proportions…

Counterfactual thinking is a form of mental simulation that informs causal judgments regarding the role antecedent events played in producing present outcomes. We examined whether inducing participants to think counterfactually about a case involving eyewitness evidence would sensitize them to variations in eyewitness evidence quality.…

Collaborative argumentation in education, where students work together to construct and critique arguments, is an important social practice in many disciplines and can also develop conceptual understanding. This article addresses the evolution of my research agenda on collaborative argumentation from just scaffolding the generation of…

Critical thinking is a key competence in higher education. However, little is known about the conception that students have of this competence. This study aims to analyze what university students understand by critical thinking and if these conceptions agree with those of university teachers analyzed in a previous study. A total of 263…