Abstract
Diagnostic argumentation can be decomposed referring to the dimensions of content (see Toulmin 2003) and explicated strategy use indicated by epistemic activities (see Fischer et al. 2014). We propose a conceptual framework to analyze these two dimensions within diagnostic argumentation and explore its use within initial applications using the method of Epistemic Network Analysis (Shaffer 2017). The results indicate that both approaches of solely analyzing the dimension of content and solely analyzing the dimension of epistemic activities offer less insights into diagnostic argumentations than an analysis that includes both dimensions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berland, L.K., Reiser, B.J.: Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Sci. Educ. 93(1), 26–55 (2009)
Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H., Custers, E.J., Feltovich, P.J.: Scripts and clinical reasoning. Med. Educ. 41(12), 1178–1184 (2007)
Coderre, S., Mandin, H., Harasym, P.H., Fick, G.H.: Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Med. Educ. 37(8), 695–703 (2003)
Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Kollar, I., Shaffer, D.W., Fischer, F.: When coding-and-counting is not enough: using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 13(4), 419–438 (2018)
Fischer, F., et al.: Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learn. Res. 2(3), 28–45 (2014)
Gartmeier, M., et al.: Fostering professional communication skills of future physicians and teachers: effects of e-learning with video cases and role-play. Instr. Sci. 43(4), 443–462 (2015)
Hetmanek, A., Engelmann, K., Opitz, A., Fischer, F.: Beyond intelligence and domain knowledge. Scientific reasoning and argumentation as a set of cross-domain skills. In: Fischer, F., Chinn, C.A., Engelmann, K., Osborne, J. (eds.) Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: The Roles of Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge, pp. 203–226. Routledge, New York (2018)
Lawson, A.E., Daniel, E.S.: Inferences of clinical diagnostic reasoning and diagnostic error. J. Biomed. Inform. 44(3), 402–412 (2011)
Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E.A., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., Kafouris, D.: A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of evidence. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48(7), 711–744 (2011)
Schulz, C., et al.: Challenges in the Automatic Analysis of Students’ Diagnostic Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10550 (2018)
Shaffer, D. W.: Quantitative ethnography. Cathcart Press, Madison (2017)
Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bauer, E. et al. (2019). Using ENA to Analyze Pre-service Teachers’ Diagnostic Argumentations: A Conceptual Framework and Initial Applications. In: Eagan, B., Misfeldt, M., Siebert-Evenstone, A. (eds) Advances in Quantitative Ethnography. ICQE 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1112. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33232-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33232-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33231-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33232-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)