Identifying paralogisms in two ethnically different contexts at university level / Identificación de paralogismos en dos contextos universitarios diferenciados étnicamente

Abstract

Spanish

Although educational researchers have long tried to answer the question ‘Who reasons well?’, little has been done in regards to the influence of culture on argumentative reasoning quality. Among the factors that have been related with the construction of valid arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals by adults are: explicit argument training, task instructions and prior knowledge. No clear evidence exists regarding the influence of the ethnical background on the flaws or fallacies of reasoning. The present study applies the recent theory of paraschemes as a tool to identify university students’ paralogisms in a common argument-mapping task on everyday issues in two different cultural contexts: one European (Spain) and one Middle Eastern (United Arab Emirates). Our analysis showed that the influence of ethnical background was not statistically significant regarding the type and amount of paralogisms committed. On the contrary, the participants’ study major, being business or education, was shown to influence the production of argument fallacies. Implications of these findings for higher education are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berland

L. K.

Reiser

B. J.

(2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. doi:10.1002/sce.20286

Brem

S. K.

Rips

L. J.

(2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604, doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2404_2

Chin

Osborne

(2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 883–908. doi:10.1002/tea.20385

De Vries

Lund

Baker

M. J.

(2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3

Driver

Newton

Osborne

(2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

Felton

Garcia-Mila

Gilabert

(2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417–446.

Ferretti

R. P.

Lewis

W. E.

Andrews-Weckerly

(2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 577–589. doi:10.1037/a0014702

Garcia-Mila

Andersen

(2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In Erduran

Jimenez- Aleixandre

M. P.

(Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Recent developments and future directions (pp. 29–47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Gilabert

Garcia-Mila

Felton

M. K.

(2013). The effect of task instructions on students’ use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2857–2878. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.663191

10.

Golanics

Nussbaum

(2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167–180. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00251.x

11.

Goodwin

(2010). The ‘passes-for’ fallacy and the future of critical thinking. Argumentation, 24, 363–374. doi:10.1007/s10503-009-9170-y

12.

Hample

Anagondahalli

(2015). Understandings of arguing in India and the United States: Argument frames, personalization of conflict, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1080/17475759.2014.1000939

13.

Hornikx

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. doi:10.1163/15685373-12342105

14.

Ismail

(2010). Arabic and English persuasive writing of Arabs from a contrastive rhetoric perspective (Unpublished dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

15.

Johnson

R. H.

Blair

(1994). Logical self-defense. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

16.

Johnstone-Koch

(1983). Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics, 25, 47–60.

17.

Johnstone-Koch

(1987). Parataxis in Arabic: Modification as a model for persuasion. Studies in Language, 11, 85–98. doi:10.1075/sl.11.1

18.

Karabenick

S. A.

Moosa

(2005). Culture and personal epistemology: U.S. and Middle Eastern students’ beliefs about scientific knowledge and knowing. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 375–393. doi:10.1007/s11218-005-1826-3

19.

Kelly

G. J.

Takao

(2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342. doi:10.1002/sce.10024

20.

Klaczynski

P. A.

(2001). Analytic and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and decision-making. Child Development, 72, 844–861. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00319

21.

Kuhn

(1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Lun

V. M. C.

Fischer

Ward

(2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 604–616. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.07.001

23.

Marttunen

Laurinen

(2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153. doi:10.1023/A:1003931514884

24.

Marttunen

Laurinen

Litosseliti

Lund

(2005). Argumentation skills as prerequisites for collaborative learning among Finnish, French, and English Secondary school students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 365–384. doi:10.1080/13803610500110588

25.

Means

Voss

(1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1

26.

Mercier

(2013). Introduction: Recording and explaining cultural differences in argumentation. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 409–417. doi:10.1163/15685373-12342101

27.

Neuman

(2003). Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13, 367–380. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00011-7

28.

Neuman

Glassner

Weinstock

(2004). The effect of a reason’s true-value on the judgment of a fallacious argument. Acta Psychologica, 116, 173–184. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.01.003

29.

Nisbett

R. E.

(2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently… and why. New York, NY: Free Press.

30.

Norenzayan

Smith

E. E.

Kim

B. J.

Nisbett

R. E.

(2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653–684. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_4

31.

Nussbaum

E. M.

Kardash

C. M.

(2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157

32.

Perkins

D. N.

Farady

Bushey

(1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In Voss

J. F.

Perkins

D. N.

Segal

J. W.

(Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

33.

Rapanta

(2013). How do young Arab Emiratis argue? A pilot study. In Sellami

A. L.

(Ed.), Argumentation, rhetoric, debate and pedagogy: Proceedings of the 2013 4th International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and Pedagogy (ICARD) (pp. 67–78). Doha, January 11–13, London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishers.

34.

Rapanta

Garcia-Mila

Gilabert

(2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 483–520. doi:10.3102/0034654313487606

35.

Rips

L. J.

(2002). Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 767–795. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2606_3

36.

Sadler

T. D.

Fowler

S. R.

(2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004. doi:10.1002/sce.20165

37.

Sadler

T. D.

Zeidler

D. L.

(2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93. doi:10.1002/sce.20023

38.

Schworm

Renkl

(2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285

39.

Smith

G. F.

(2003). Beyond critical thinking and decision making: Teaching business students how to think. Journal of Management Education, 27, 24–51. doi:10.1177/1052562902239247

40.

Terwel

(1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 195–199. doi:10.1080/002202799183223

41.

The Hofstede Centre . (2015). Comparison between United Arab Emirates and Spain. Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/arab-emirates.html

42.

van Gelder

T. J.

(2007). The rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 23–42. doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm032

43.

von Aufschnaiter

Erduran

Osborne

Simon

(2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies on how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101–131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213

44.

Walton

D. N.

(1998). The new dialectic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

45.

Walton

D. N.

(2010). Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic, 30, 159–184.

46.

Walton

D. N.

(2011). Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies. Synthese, 179, 377–407. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9657-y

47.

Walton

D. N.

(2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Walton

D. N.

Reed

Macagno

(2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Weinstock

Neuman

Tabak

(2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 77–94. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(03)00024-9

50.

Wolfe

C. R.

(2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28, 193–219. doi:10.1177/0741088311399236

51.

Xie

Hample

Wang

(2014, July 1–4). A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. Paper presented at the 8^th International Conference of the Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.