Knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming arguments in mock jurors' verdict justifications

Juror reasoning and verdict choice have been explored variously as functions of argument skill and the overall story representation of the evidence on which verdict choices are based. This study investigates the proportion of testimony covered in the justification of a verdict choice and its relationship with argument skill, narrative explanation or evidence‐based argument, and certainty about verdict choice. Each of these variables was also compared with the verdict choice. People serving jury duty justified verdict choices in two abridged jury trials. Individuals were consistent in the relative amount of evidence used in both trials. Argument skills, evidence evaluation type, and evidence synthesis type all accounted for variance in the amount of evidence covered. Evidence coverage, along with argument skills, predicted verdict choice. As expected, those most certain about verdict choice did not use the most evidence. Implications regarding mediating factors in story construction and juror decision making are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This paper examines how Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) reshapes both extends and challenges traditional anthropological fieldwork and interpretive methods. Drawing on the concepts of knowledge telling and knowledge transforming, the paper shows how Gen AI enhances collaboration through simulated interviews, co-written field notes, and AI-mediated essay critiques. The lens of distributed cognition elucidates how AI systems can serve as cognitive partners, offloading routine tasks while simultaneously raising concerns about bias and authenticity. Likewise, generative midtended cognition highlights how human intentions and algorithmic outputs interact in producing ethnographic texts. The paper’s case studies showcase how students develop critical awareness of cultural nuances, recognising Gen AI’s potential to expand inquiry while remaining attentive to ethical obligations and the cultural specificity of anthropological work. Viewing Gen AI as a “collaborative textualiser” allows anthropology to preserve reflexive immersion and nuanced interpretation, even as computational tools enter teaching and research. Ultimately, the paper contends that Gen AI need not displace traditional methodologies; rather, it compels a deeper engagement with reflexivity, representation, and accountability, ensuring that anthropological inquiry evolves responsibly in an increasingly interconnected academic terrain.

Three hundred and eighteen in‐service teachers from Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Hungary participated in a professional training program aimed at promoting their metacognitive and epistemic thinking and practices, with argumentation as a prominent teaching practice. Pre‐program survey results revealed that teachers' personal and teaching epistemic practices were underdeveloped, with particularly low engagement in the latter. Personal epistemic practices predicted teaching ones. Cultural differences emerged, with Greek and Cypriot teachers reporting higher engagement in both epistemic practices than Romanian and Hungarian teachers. In‐depth interviews with six Greek and Cypriot teachers who implemented argumentation post‐program indicated that argument‐based practices improved students' epistemic understanding, particularly in appreciating multiple perspectives, evaluating sources and using evidence. Teachers acknowledged receiving limited preparation for promoting students' epistemic understanding and argumentation skills. These findings highlight the need for higher education programs to develop pre‐ and in‐service teachers' epistemic practices. Implications for higher education and policymakers are discussed.

This study is an investigation of the patterns and strength of the connections between English dative verbs and the double object dative (DOD) argument structure in native speaker production. The subjects completed three written production tasks using dative and other verbs from different semantic classes of verbs. The results show that alternating dative verbs varied in their patterns of connection to argument structures, but were consistent in the strength of their connection to the DOD argument structure across subjects and tasks. There was no support for production differences due to verb class membership, but the results do support a model of lexical representation that represents variable strengths of association between individual verbs and argument structures. With respect to the design of production and processing studies, the results do not support the treatment of alternating dative verbs as a unitary group, nor a priori assumptions about relative argument structure complexity between alternating and nonalternating verbs, but do support the use of production tasks to determine individual verb argument structure preferences.

Improving teacher competency is more effective when supported by continuous professional development. This Community Service Program continues previous activities in 2024, which focused on training chemistry teachers to develop argumentation-based questions. Although teachers can now construct such questions, challenges remain in classroom implementation, especially in applying strategies and assessing their impact on students’ argumentation skills. To address this, the program introduces Classroom Action Research (CAR) based on argumentation skills. The goal is to equip chemistry teachers with practical knowledge and skills to design and implement learning that fosters argumentation through CAR. The program includes training, group discussions, tests and questionnaires, mentoring in CAR planning, implementation practice, and reflection. Results show improved teacher understanding of argumentation structures, CAR stages, and enhanced ability to design contextual and reflective learning to develop students’ argumentation skills. This program supports the sustainable development of argumentation-based learning to improve the quality of chemistry education in line with 21st-century demands. This program demonstrates an effective model for sustaining argumentation-based learning in chemistry education.

O presente trabalho trata de uma investigação, de caráter intervencionista e aplicada, envolvendo gêneros orais formais, que culminou na realização de um debate de opinião com alunos do 9º ano de uma escola estadual de João Pessoa (PB) sobre o tema “Maconha: Manter Proibição ou Descriminalizar?”. Partimos do pressuposto de que a oralidade, principalmente em situações formais, é esquecida pela escola, o que compromete a formação integral de estudantes de Língua Portuguesa e, por isso, deve ser incentivada em sala de aula. O principal objetivo do procedimento foi instrumentalizar os estudantes para a produção competente e crítica de textos orais, especialmente na modalidade formal, ensinando-os a usar a língua, de forma adequada, em todos os contextos. Como parâmetro de intervenção, nos baseamos (com adaptações) no modelo de sequência didática de Dolz, Noverraz e Schneuwly (2004), levando em conta estratégias que permitissem aos estudantes compreender e produzir textos adequados ao gênero em questão, considerando seu estilo, conteúdo temático e estrutura composicional (BAKHTIN, 1997) e ainda tivessem desenvolvidas suas capacidades argumentativas. Como aporte teórico, recorremos a Antunes (2003), Reyzábal (1999), Koch (2011) e Marcuschi (1997, 2007, 2010), que nos subsidiaram no entendimento sobre oralidade, leitura, escrita, gêneros orais e debate. Além de Preti (2004) e Ramos (1997), que contribuíram no estudo do registro linguístico e gêneros orais formais e Ribeiro (2009); Fiorin (2015) e Leitão (2011), que tratam dos conceitos de argumentação, contra-argumentação e recursos argumentativos. Nossa análise tomou por base a comparação entre a primeira produção (cujo tema foi homofobia) e a última, considerado o trabalho desenvolvido durante os módulos. Foi possível detectar avanços como a caracterização, pelos alunos, do gênero debate de opinião, a partir da articulação de seus três elementos constituintes e a formulação de pontos de vista linguística, semântica e argumentativamente articulados, com o uso de recursos como a exemplificação, a exposição de fatos e a transitividade. Ao final, apresentamos uma sugestão de sequência didática sobre o gênero debate de opinião, baseada em nossa prática de sala de aula.

This paper assesses the place of middle structures in relation to transitivity and intransitivity in English. Unlike some accounts that have questioned the grammatical status of middles as a self-standing category, this research justifies the recognition of middles as a structural category that constitutes an independent class of intransitive sentences. It does so through an analysis of the underlying thematic structure of middles themselves, as compared to structures which deviate from the middle prototype and other non-canonical structures. A discussion of these issues highlights the great fluidity shown by English verbs entering diathesis alternations, as well as the intransitivisation process exhibited by the English verbal paradigm. The paper concludes with some theoretical considerations regarding the notion of argument structure.

Background: Children with specific language impairment (CwSLI) exhibit significant difficulties in language ability affecting areas such verb knowledge and verb production, producing fewer verbs and verb argument structures than typically developing (TD) children. As verbs are critical to sentence production it is also not surprising that they also produce fewer complex sentences. Although these areas of impairment are widely acknowledged there is a dearth of clinically available instruments that comprehensively assess verbs production and complex sentences in this population. Aims: To gather normative data from typically developing children aged 4;06-12;00 on their sentence complexity and production of verbs and their related argument structures using the newly developed story retell tool ‘Captain Grey and the Greedy Aliens’; to investigate the sensitivity of the assessment across the age ranges; to investigate the inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of the assessment; and finally to investigate the relationship between verb knowledge and verb argument structure accuracy and sentence complexity. Method &Procedure: Normative data was gathered on 91 typically developing children aged 4;06-12;00 using the story retell assessment; Captain Grey and the Greedy Aliens. Participant’s verb knowledge was also assessed via the Test of Verb Knowledge to allow for investigation of the relationship between verb knowledge and verb argument structure accuracy and sentence complexity. Outcome & Results: The story retell assessment was sensitive to developmental progression across age groups for mean accuracy of verb argument structures production and mean sentence complexity and was found to be highly reliable for inter-rater reliability. Positive relationships were found between verb knowledge and verb argument structure accuracy and sentence complexity. Conclusions & Implications: The story retell tool was shown to be effective in eliciting and analysing verb and verb argument structure production and sentence complexity. The data collected in this study can be used to provide normative data on this assessment however further sampling with larger sample sizes is warranted. Captain Grey and the Greedy Aliens may be a clinically useful tool.

Two experimental studies examined the effect of opposing expert testimony on perceptions of the reliability of unvalidated forensic evidence (anthropometric facial comparison). In the first study a...

Representations have two functions for students learning in science: a cognitive function and a contextual function. There has been a long history of cognitive research into students’ knowledge and ability to externalize their perception of a particular concept and phenomena. From a cognitive pedagogical perspective, different modes (e.g., diagrams, drawings, tables) and genre structures (e.g., argument structure) become useful means to organize information, inscribe mental models, and crystalize meanings from chaotic thoughts. Writing is a powerful learning tool to achieve the goals. By contrast, from a social contextual perspective, constructed representations not only simply transfer the information from individuals but also recreate shared meanings for communication and consensus building as a community through searching for deficiencies in those representations by solving cognitive conflict. Several scholars advocate talk that plays an important role to explain, debate, and negotiate meanings. However, science is not “solely verbal concepts, though they have verbal components. They are semiotic hybrids, simultaneously and essentially verbal, mathematical, visual-graphical, and actional-operational” (Lemke J, Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. Routledge, London, p 87, 1998). A recent study conducted by Chen, Park, and Hand (Cognit Instruct 34(2):100–147, 2016) suggest that the synergetic use of talk and writing creates more powerful and meaningful learning environment for student learning in science than talk only and writing only. However, little empirical evidence exists to show what environment and classroom norms have better potential to create dual functions of representations for students. A paucity of empirical research and theoretical framework exists on explaining how students learn science through the dual functions of representations and how students shift their single function of representations to dual functions if they possess single in the beginning. This book chapter proposes a framework and questions from the perspective of the dual functions of representations that may help future research in student learning.

The acquisition of map-based argumentation skills is of great importance to prepare learners for social participation in finding solutions to current global challenges. Since it is the task of geography education to teach students these skills, it requires adequately trained teachers who themselves have an appropriate conceptual understanding of map-based argumentation and are aware of the didactic advantages and challenges of this approach. This international study therefore investigated the didactic understanding of map-based argumentation among 246 geography students in Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain using questionnaire in a pre–posttest design. Additionally, this study examined the importance they attach to teaching these skills in the context of map skills and whether their attitudes change as a result of completing a project seminar. It was shown that the majority of students had only a rudimentary understanding of the concept before the course and attributed little importance to map-based argumentation in relation to other map skills. Participation in seminars across the three countries, where map-based argumentation was explicitly taught and applied, enhanced students’ conceptual understanding and increased their appreciation of its didactic value. These findings underscore the importance of targeted training in teacher education to embed map-based argumentation as a core component of geography instruction.

When musicians improvise together, they tend to agree beforehand on a common structure (e.g. a jazz standard) which helps them coordinate. However, in the particular case of collective free improvisation (CFI), musicians deliberately avoid having such a referent. How, then, can they coordinate? We propose that CFI musicians who have experience playing together come to share higher-level knowledge, which is not piece-specific but rather task-specific: an implicit mental model of what it is to improvise freely. We tested this hypothesis on a group of 19 expert improvisers from the Parisian CFI community, who had various degrees of experience playing with one another. Drawing from the methodology of team cognition, we used a card-sorting procedure on a set of 25 short improvised sound sequences to elicit and represent each participant’s mental model of the CFI task. We then evaluated the similarity between the participants’ models, and used the measure in a nearest neighbour classification algorithm to retrieve clusters of participants who were known to play together. As hypothesized, we found that the degree of similarity in participants’ mental models predicted their degree of musical familiarity with better-than-random accuracy: musicians who played together tended to ‘think’ about improvised music in the same way.

The paper relates to the use of electronic analogue computers to evaluate and display the vibrations of flexible beams and related structures. The method is characterized by the speed and continuity with which the desired information is presented and by the fact that it provides a continous mental picture or model of the physical system being studied. The techniques described are applicable to “thin” beams in general and are capable of yielding static as well as dynamic information. They have, however, been evolved primarily to deal with problems in dynamics whose complexity makes them unsuitable for treatment by “classical” methods. A simple hypothesis concerning structural energy dissipation is discussed. It is shown to possess valuable practical advantages except where the detailed mechanism of structural energy loss is itself the subject of investigation. The essential correctness of the basic premises, and the practicability of realizing a useful synthetic “beam” have been demonstrated experimentally. Much further development remains to be completed however. The paper concludes with a review of certain directions in which progress is hoped for in the immediate future.

Argumentative writing poses significant challenges for second-language (L2) learners. Generative AI (GenAI) offers pedagogical support, but existing tools typically act as single assistants and fail to simulate the dynamic, multi-perspective dialogue essential for robust argumentation. We introduce a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework in which multiple AI personas engage in structured debates to foster divergent thinking and expose learners to varied viewpoints. In a one-group pretest–posttest exploratory study (N = 22 Chinese EFL undergraduates), we investigated MAD’s impact on argumentative writing and learner perceptions. Preliminary results indicate that MAD enhanced argument structure and quality, promoted metacognitive awareness, cultivated critical AI skepticism, and reduced anxiety when addressing controversial topics. These findings suggest MAD is a promising approach for improving both L2 argumentative skills and GenAI literacy.

Towards explaining the cognitive efficacy of Euler diagrams in syllogistic reasoning: A relational perspective