Measuring argumentative reasoning

What's behind the numbers?

Alina Reznitskaya, Li jen Kuo, Monica Glina, Richard C. Anderson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop a more thorough, empirically-based understanding of the differences in measurement of written argumentation when alternative scoring frameworks are employed. Reflective compositions of 127 elementary school children were analyzed using analytic and holistic scales. The scales were derived from Argument Schema Theory, an explicit model of argumentation development. We investigated the relationships among the different scales, as well as their relative reliability and efficiency. The scores derived using analytic and holistic methods have adequate reliability. Although less efficient, analytic scoring allows for gathering more sensitive and detailed information about the differences in student performance. The results suggest that the choice of an analytic framework for measuring argumentation should not be arbitrary, as each scoring method taps into distinct facets of the construct.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)219-224
Number of pages6
JournalLearning and Individual Differences
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jun 2009

Fingerprint

argumentation
Research Design
Students
schoolchild
elementary school
efficiency
performance
student

Keywords

  • Alternative assessment
  • Argumentation
  • Reliability
  • Scoring rubrics
  • Validity

Cite this

Reznitskaya, Alina ; Kuo, Li jen ; Glina, Monica ; Anderson, Richard C. / Measuring argumentative reasoning : What's behind the numbers?. In: Learning and Individual Differences. 2009 ; Vol. 19, No. 2. pp. 219-224.
@article{6d540f59a1bd4b318f0d75a5541d9c40,
title = "Measuring argumentative reasoning: What's behind the numbers?",
abstract = "The aim of this paper is to develop a more thorough, empirically-based understanding of the differences in measurement of written argumentation when alternative scoring frameworks are employed. Reflective compositions of 127 elementary school children were analyzed using analytic and holistic scales. The scales were derived from Argument Schema Theory, an explicit model of argumentation development. We investigated the relationships among the different scales, as well as their relative reliability and efficiency. The scores derived using analytic and holistic methods have adequate reliability. Although less efficient, analytic scoring allows for gathering more sensitive and detailed information about the differences in student performance. The results suggest that the choice of an analytic framework for measuring argumentation should not be arbitrary, as each scoring method taps into distinct facets of the construct.",
keywords = "Alternative assessment, Argumentation, Reliability, Scoring rubrics, Validity",
author = "Alina Reznitskaya and Kuo, {Li jen} and Monica Glina and Anderson, {Richard C.}",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "219--224",
journal = "Learning and Individual Differences",
issn = "1041-6080",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

Measuring argumentative reasoning : What's behind the numbers? / Reznitskaya, Alina; Kuo, Li jen; Glina, Monica; Anderson, Richard C.

In: Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 19, No. 2, 01.06.2009, p. 219-224.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring argumentative reasoning

T2 - What's behind the numbers?

AU - Reznitskaya, Alina

AU - Kuo, Li jen

AU - Glina, Monica

AU - Anderson, Richard C.

PY - 2009/6/1

Y1 - 2009/6/1

N2 - The aim of this paper is to develop a more thorough, empirically-based understanding of the differences in measurement of written argumentation when alternative scoring frameworks are employed. Reflective compositions of 127 elementary school children were analyzed using analytic and holistic scales. The scales were derived from Argument Schema Theory, an explicit model of argumentation development. We investigated the relationships among the different scales, as well as their relative reliability and efficiency. The scores derived using analytic and holistic methods have adequate reliability. Although less efficient, analytic scoring allows for gathering more sensitive and detailed information about the differences in student performance. The results suggest that the choice of an analytic framework for measuring argumentation should not be arbitrary, as each scoring method taps into distinct facets of the construct.

AB - The aim of this paper is to develop a more thorough, empirically-based understanding of the differences in measurement of written argumentation when alternative scoring frameworks are employed. Reflective compositions of 127 elementary school children were analyzed using analytic and holistic scales. The scales were derived from Argument Schema Theory, an explicit model of argumentation development. We investigated the relationships among the different scales, as well as their relative reliability and efficiency. The scores derived using analytic and holistic methods have adequate reliability. Although less efficient, analytic scoring allows for gathering more sensitive and detailed information about the differences in student performance. The results suggest that the choice of an analytic framework for measuring argumentation should not be arbitrary, as each scoring method taps into distinct facets of the construct.

KW - Alternative assessment

KW - Argumentation

KW - Reliability

KW - Scoring rubrics

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64249164438&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 219

EP - 224

JO - Learning and Individual Differences

JF - Learning and Individual Differences

SN - 1041-6080

IS - 2

ER -