Psychological Research and the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation

Abstract

Much psychological research on argumentation focuses on persuasion and pragmatics. However, one strand investigates how average people understand the nature of knowledge and knowing, and how these epistemological orientations underlie skilled argumentation. The research reviewed addresses the question whether the normative emphasis of the philosophical epistemological approach to argumentation matches psychological findings. The empirical research reviewed concerns the relationship between personal epistemological understanding and three aspects of argument: argument construction, identification of informal reasoning fallacies, and orientation toward explanation or evidence. Findings suggest that people develop an epistemological approach toward argumentation in which beliefs about knowledge justification requirements are related with skilled argumentation.Résumé: Plusieurs recherches en psychologie sur l'argumentation concentrent sur la persuasion et la pragmatique. Toutefois celles-ci cherchent à savoir comment des personnes moyennes comprennent la nature des connaissances, et comment cette compréhension épistémologique sous-tend les habiletés argumentatives. La recherche examinée tente de déterminer si l'accent normatif de l'approche de l'épistémologique correspond aux découvertes en psychologie. La recherche examinée s'intéresse au rapport entre la compréhension personnelle épistémo-logique et trois aspects d'un argument : sa construction, l'identification des sophismes non-formels, et l'orientation vers l'explication ou l'appui. Les résultats suggèrent qu'on développe une approche épistémologique envers l'argumentation dans laquelle les croyances sur les exigences de la justification des connaissances se relient avec les habiletés argumentatives.

Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays

“…Also, no relationship was found between personal justification of knowledge claims and written argumentation. Thus, this study supports the idea that epistemic cognition may underlie argumentative reasoning (Weinstock, ), also further specifying what kind of online epistemic cognition may be considered facilitative in the context of working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue.…”

“…Given the particular reading context of multiple conflicting documents, we also expected that justification by multiple sources would be the best predictor of sourcing skills. With respect to the second question, the theoretical assumptions (Bråten, Britt, et al ., ; Britt & Rouet, ) as well as the prior work regarding epistemic cognition and argumentation (e.g., Mason & Scirica, ; Weinstock & Cronin, ) that guided our study again gave us reason to expect that epistemic cognition concerning the justification for knowing would predict argumentative reasoning independent of prior knowledge. Moreover, the particular reading‐task context that we created made it likely that justification by multiple sources would be a particularly important contributor to argumentation.…”

“…Relevant to the contribution of justification for knowing to argumentation are also a series of studies by Weinstock and colleagues (e.g., Glassner et al, 2005;Weinstock & Cronin, 2003;Weinstock et al, 2006; for review, see Weinstock, 2006). In one of those studies, Weinstock and Cronin (2003) demonstrated that the argumentative reasoning that American jurors displayed when reflecting on two criminal cases was predicted by levels of epistemic cognition, with six such levels, representing a further differentiation of the absolutist, multiplist and evaluativist grouping, derived from interviews with the jurors.…”

What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education

“…because it is a way of constructing specific knowledge (Baker, 1999;Schwarz, 2009), because of its strong relationship to individuals' epistemological beliefs (Weinstock, Neuman, & Glassner, 2006;Weinstock, 2006), because it seems that argumentation is related to some informal reasoning mechanism that only becomes activated through the practice of argument (Means & Voss, 1996;Reznitskaya, et al, 2001), because of its connection to critical thinking (Kuhn, 2005), and finally because people seem to learn "better" when they argue (Baker, 2003;Leitao, 2000;Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003).…”

Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching

“…Personal epistemology also predicts individual performance on academic tasks. Students with more advanced epistemologies are more likely to better comprehend texts, to develop a deeper conceptual understanding of a given subject, to identify informal reasoning fallacies, and to construct arguments of higher quality (e.g., Kuhn, 1991;Mason & Scirica, 2006;Nussbaum, Sinatra, & Poliquin, 2008;Qian & Alvermann, 2000;Songer & Linn, 1991;Stromso & Braten, 2009;Weinstock, 2006;Weinstock, Neuman, & Tabak, 2004). For example, Mason and Scirica (2006) measured epistemological levels of middle school students using a task developed by Kuhn, Cheney, and Weinstock (2000).…”