Secondary school students’ development of arguments for complex geographical conflicts using the internet

Figures & data

Figure 1. Assignment for the study task¹

Figure 2. Modified Toulmin argumentation pattern (2003). The example given represents an argument from the geographical conflict of the study assignment (authors' own elaboration)

Table 1. Argumentation evaluation scheme suitable for geographic argumentations (author’s own diagram)

Table 2. Illustrated analysis and assessment of arguments (author’s own diagram)

	statements within the argumentation	element of the argumentation and assessment
1	I think that the Elbe bridge should be built.	own opinion/claim (2 points)
2	The bridge is a great help for commuters, school children and residents who otherwise have to wait for the ferry or take long detours	justification supporting the opinion (1 point) reference for whom it counts/multiperspectivity (0.5 points)
3	According to a Citizens’ Initiative it saves agriculture and forestry more than 100,000 Euros annually in ferry costs.	justification supporting the opinion (1 point) numbers to specify the argument (0.5 points) reference for whom it counts (0.5 points)
4	There may also be more tourism, which is good for the people who live there.	invalid justification, as there is no warrant connecting it to the claim (0 points) specification for whom it counts “people who live there” (0 points, as the argument is invalid)
5	A few other bridges on the Elbe are not usable due to renovations.	irrelevant/invalid justification, as this statement is not relevant or obviously connected to our conflict (0 points)
6	But for an access road to the bridge, some houses would have to be demolished, forcing some residents out of their homes.	counter-argument (1 point) reference for whom it counts/ multiperspectivity (0.5 points)
7	However, this only applies if the access road cannot be directed in any other way.	rebuttal of counter-argument (1 point)

Figure 3. Assessment and analysis of valid student argumentation patterns (N = 19) (author’s own diagram); participating students are arranged according to their overall score in the argumentation, starting with the student who scored the highest

Figure 4. Average student argumentation pattern used to justify their opinion (N = 19) (author’s own diagram)

Figure 5. Connection between the students’ scores in their argumentations, their inclusion of valid justifications, counter-arguments and weakening in their argumentations and their number of relevant, valid pieces of information identified while searching the Internet (author’s own diagram)

Figure 6. Connection between taking structures notes during the Internet search and the students’ success in argumentation (author’s own diagram)

Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge

 Google Scholar