Beliefs influence argumentative essay writing

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Instructional Science Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1007/s11251-024-09663-x
Liam W. Hart, Michael B. Wolfe, Todd J. Williams, Gregory M. Russell
{"title":"Beliefs influence argumentative essay writing","authors":"Liam W. Hart, Michael B. Wolfe, Todd J. Williams, Gregory M. Russell","doi":"10.1007/s11251-024-09663-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The content of argumentative essays is determined by multiple factors, but belief influences are understudied compared to topic knowledge and argument schema. We investigate how beliefs influence the inclusion of basic components in argumentative writing. A pre-screening survey identified believers and disbelievers in gun control effectiveness. In a subsequent laboratory session, subjects (<i>N</i> = 324) read a one-sided text that was either consistent or inconsistent with their beliefs. Subjects then reported their beliefs and wrote a 250-word argumentative essay explaining them. These essays were coded for the presence or absence of a claim, the number of reasons supporting the claim, the presence of a counterargument, text content, and other factors. 682 supplementary subjects provided approximately 10 ratings for each essay on several factors, including position, clarity, and consideration of both sides. Subjects who read a belief consistent text wrote essays that were more likely to contain a claim, more reasons, and text content. Subjects who read a belief inconsistent text were more likely to include an evaluative statement about the text and to consider both sides of the issue. Individual differences in belief change were related to the likelihood of stating a claim, the number of reasons, and likelihood of mentioning text content. Results suggest that beliefs influence the basic components of argumentation that are included in argumentative essays. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09663-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The content of argumentative essays is determined by multiple factors, but belief influences are understudied compared to topic knowledge and argument schema. We investigate how beliefs influence the inclusion of basic components in argumentative writing. A pre-screening survey identified believers and disbelievers in gun control effectiveness. In a subsequent laboratory session, subjects (N = 324) read a one-sided text that was either consistent or inconsistent with their beliefs. Subjects then reported their beliefs and wrote a 250-word argumentative essay explaining them. These essays were coded for the presence or absence of a claim, the number of reasons supporting the claim, the presence of a counterargument, text content, and other factors. 682 supplementary subjects provided approximately 10 ratings for each essay on several factors, including position, clarity, and consideration of both sides. Subjects who read a belief consistent text wrote essays that were more likely to contain a claim, more reasons, and text content. Subjects who read a belief inconsistent text were more likely to include an evaluative statement about the text and to consider both sides of the issue. Individual differences in belief change were related to the likelihood of stating a claim, the number of reasons, and likelihood of mentioning text content. Results suggest that beliefs influence the basic components of argumentation that are included in argumentative essays. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
信念影响议论文写作
议论文的内容由多种因素决定,但与主题知识和论证模式相比,对信念影响的研究不足。我们研究了信念如何影响议论文写作中的基本内容。预选调查确定了枪支管制有效性的信奉者和不信奉者。在随后的实验课上,受试者(N = 324)阅读了一篇与他们的信念一致或不一致的单边文章。然后,受试者报告他们的信仰,并撰写一篇 250 字的议论文来解释他们的信仰。这些文章根据是否有主张、支持主张的理由数量、是否有反驳、文章内容和其他因素进行编码。682 名补充受试者就立场、清晰度和对正反两方面的考虑等几个因素对每篇文章进行了大约 10 次评分。阅读信念一致文章的受试者所写的文章更有可能包含主张、更多理由和文字内容。阅读信念不一致文章的受试者更有可能在文章中包含对文章的评价性陈述,并考虑到问题的正反两方面。信念变化的个体差异与陈述主张的可能性、理由的数量以及提及文本内容的可能性有关。研究结果表明,信念会影响议论文中论证的基本要素。本文讨论了这些发现的理论和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings.  The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field.  When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards.  To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively.  Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
期刊最新文献
Spaced recall reduces forgetting of fundamental mathematical concepts in a post high school precalculus course The roles that students’ ethnicity and achievement levels play in teachers’ choice of learning materials in online teaching: evidence from two experimental studies Research on the correlation between teacher classroom questioning types and student thinking development from the perspective of discourse analysis Developmental relations between mathematics self-concept, interest, and achievement: A comparison of solo- and co-taught classes Gaming the system mediates the relationship between gender and learning outcomes in a digital learning game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1