Necesidades de formación del profesorado de Lengua y Literatura para el desarrollo de la argumentación informal en el comentario de texto

Este estudio se enmarca en un proyecto de I+D+i sobre la formación del profesorado de español como lengua materna y extranjera en la didáctica de la argumentación informal implicada en el comentario de texto, el cual ha sido patrocinado por el Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad de Gobierno de España. El objetivo general de la presente investigación consiste en profundizar en las demandas de formación y de materiales didácticospor parte de este profesorado para el desarrollo de la argumentación informal en el comentario de texto. La investigación se centra en una metodología cualitativa de diseño interpretativo-fenomenológico para explorar los significados que explican las demandas aludidas, por medio del instrumento de la entrevista realizada a 34 docentes, que han sido seleccionados como informantes clave en atención a su perfil y experiencia profesional. El proceso de análisis se ha llevado a cabo mediante la reducción de la información obtenida en un mapa de significados, a través de un sistema inductivo de categorización y codificación de los datos realizado por el programa de análisis cualitativo Atlas.ti 7.Finalmente, el diálogo propiciado a través de las entrevistas ha revelado argumentos de gran interés sobre las demandas de formación y de materiales didácticos que este profesorado formula con razones causales y con la voluntad de autentificar su desarrollo profesional competente en didáctica de la argumentación informal en el comentario de textos. This study is part of an R+D+i project on the training of teachers of Spanish as a first and foreign language in the didactics of informal argumentation involved in text commentary, which was sponsored by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of the Government of Spain. The general aim of this research consists of delving into the demands of training and teaching materials for the development of informal argumentation when doing textcommentary. The research adopts a qualitative methodology with an interpretative-phenomenological design in order to explore the meanings that explain the aforementioned demands. 34 teachers were selected, and later interviewed, as key informants according to their profile and professional experience. Data analysis was conducted by means of the reduction of the information obtained in a map of meanings, through an inductive system of data categorisationand codification carried out with the qualitative analysis program Atlas.ti 7. Finally, the dialogue fostered through the interviews revealed arguments of great interest regarding the demands of training and teaching materials, which these teachers formulate with causal reasons and with the will to authenticate their competent professional development in the didactics of informal argumentation in text commentary.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Informal Argumentation: Norms, Inductive Biases and Evidentiality

Cross-cultural differences in argumentation may be explained by the use of different norms of reasoning. However, some norms derive from, presumably universal, mathematical laws. This inconsistency can be resolved, by considering that some norms of argumentation, like Bayes theorem, are mathematical functions. Systematic variation in the inputs may produce culture-dependent inductive biases although the function remains invariant. This hypothesis was tested by fitting a Bayesian model to data on informal argumentation from Turkish and English cultures, which linguistically mark evidence quality differently. The experiment varied evidential marking and informant reliability in argumentative dialogues and revealed cross-cultural differences for both independent variables. The Bayesian model fitted the data from both cultures well but there were differences in the parameters consistent with culture-specific inductive biases. These findings are related to current controversies over the universality of the norms of reasoning and the role of normative theories in the psychology of reasoning.

Vargfrågan - Gymnasieelevers argumentation kring ett sociovetenskapligt dilemma. "The Wolf Issue - Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation about a Socio-Scientific Issue."

The focus of this study is the attitudes towards wolves in Sweden among upper secondary students. This socio-scientific issue (SSI) involves many aspects, such as ethical, political and biological aspects, and provides a context to study students’ informal argumentation. The different arguments used by the students were analyzed using the framework of the SEE-SEP-model. A questionnaire probing attitudes to the existence of wolves in the neighbourhood was distributed to 352 upper secondary students. 18 students were interviewed in focused group-interviews (in pairs). The results showed that 55% of the students showed a negative attitude towards the existence of wolves in the neighbourhood. The analysis of the different aspects of arguments used by the students in the interviews showed that arguments based on value were more dominant (60%) than arguments based on knowledge(30%), and arguments based on personal experiences (10%).

Arguing Satisfaction of Security Requirements

This chapter presents a process for security requirements elicitation and analysis, based around the construction of a satisfaction argument for the security of a system. The process starts with the enumeration of security goals based on assets in the system, then uses these goals to derive security requirements in the form of constraints. Next, a satisfaction argument for the system is constructed, using a problem-centered representation, a formal proof to analyze properties that can be demonstrated, and structured informal argumentation of the assumptions exposed during construction of the argument. Constructing the satisfaction argument can expose missing and inconsistent assumptions about system context and behavior that effect security, and a completed argument provides assurances that a system can respect its security requirements.

Arguing Satisfaction of Security Requirements

This chapter presents a process for security requirements elicitation and analysis, based around the construction of a satisfaction argument for the security of a system. The process starts with the enumeration of security goals based on assets in the system, then uses these goals to derive security requirements in the form of constraints. Next, a satisfaction argument for the system is constructed, using a problem-centered representation, a formal proof to analyze properties that can be demonstrated, and structured informal argumentation of the assumptions exposed during construction of the argument. Constructing the satisfaction argument can expose missing and inconsistent assumptions about system context and behavior that effect security, and a completed argument provides assurances that a system can respect its security requirements.