Current approaches used in educational research and practice to evaluate the quality of written arguments often rely on structural analysis. In such assessments, credit is awarded for the presence of structural elements of an argument, such as claims, evidence, and rebuttals. In this article, we discuss limitations of such approaches, including the absence of criteria for evaluating the quality of the argument elements. We then present an alternative framework, based on the Rational Force Model (RFM), which originated from the work (...) of a Nordic philosopher Næss. Using an example of an argumentative essay, we demonstrate the potential of the RFM to improve argument analysis by focusing on the acceptability and relevance of argument elements, two criteria widely considered to be fundamental markers of argument strength. We outline possibilities and challenges with using the RFM in educational contexts and conclude by proposing directions for future research. (shrink)

In this paper, I will discuss new approaches to investigating increasingly influential, yet under-researched, theoretical assumptions regarding the role dialogic interaction plays in cognitive development. I will present a psychological theory that refines social learning models by integrating them with schema-theoreticperspectives. I will then review Philosophy for Children pedagogy, demonstrating how it can provide a useful context for conducting empirical studies of learning theories that emphasize the use of dialogue for promoting individual argumentation development. Next, I will describe a research (...) design and data-analytic tools used to examine the educational potential of engagement in a philosophical dialogue for the development of argumentation. Finally, I will present preliminary results of a study evaluating the connections between 1) specific features of group interactions experienced by elementary school students and 2) individual student performance on multiple measures of argumentation. (shrink)