Difference between revisions of "Discussion structure"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(some text copied from Discussion method)
(the structure of the result improved)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
==Result==
 
==Result==
  
−
The discussion has four parts:
+
The discussion has three, sometimes four parts: statements, argumentation, resolution, and sometimes nuggets. These are briefly described below using a discussion template. Argumentation consists of defending and attacking arguments and comments.
−
* The explication of a dispute. It consists of ''two or more'' conflicting '''statements''', each of which is promoted by a discussant. There is always an implicit statement that none of the explicit statements are true. Therefore, it is enough to explicate one statement.
 
−
* The '''argumentation''', which contains the actual discussion and is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments. Each argument is either an attack against or a defence for a argument (called target). A target argument may also be an original statement. As arguments always point to another argument, they form a hierarchical thread structure. It is also possible to use coordinative arguments where two or more arguments together act like one argument. Each argument is valid unless it has no proponents (a discussant promoting the argument) or it is attacked by a valid argument. In addition to attacks and defences, also comments can be used for asking or offering clarification; comments do not affect the validity of the target argument.
 
−
* The '''resolution''' is the outcome of the discussion. A full resolution is found when only one of the original statements remains valid. Partial resolutions are situations where some statements have been successfully invalidated, but there are still several conflicting but valid statements. The contents of the resolutions is transferred to the actual contents of the [[attribute]]. It should be noted that resolutions are always temporary, as even fully resolved discussions can be opened again with new arguments.
 
−
* The '''[[nugget]]s''', which are mainly used in ''a posteriori'' discussions. Nuggets are freely structured text containing the original discussion, from which the actual argumentation is then restructured. A nugget cannot be changed afterwards, and in this respect it is a different kind of contribution than all other parts in [[open assessment]].
 
−
 
 
  
 
For discussing, the [[discussion structure]] should be used. Click the blue capital '''D''' in the toolbar on top of the edit window to apply the discussion template. This is how the discussion format appears:
 
For discussing, the [[discussion structure]] should be used. Click the blue capital '''D''' in the toolbar on top of the edit window to apply the discussion template. This is how the discussion format appears:
  
 
{{discussion  
 
{{discussion  
−
|Statements = This is either
+
|Statements = The explication of a dispute. It consists of ''two or more'' conflicting '''statements''', each of which is promoted by a discussant. There is always an implicit statement that none of the explicit statements are true. Therefore, it is enough to explicate one statement.
−
*a single statement made in the Opasnet page content upon which someone cast doubt, or
+
|Resolution = The '''resolution''' is the outcome of the discussion. A full resolution is found when only one of the original statements remains valid. Partial resolutions are situations where some statements have been successfully invalidated, but there are still several conflicting but valid statements. The contents of a resolution are transferred to the actual contents of the [[attribute]]. It should be noted that resolutions are always temporary, as even fully resolved discussions can be opened again with new arguments.
−
*a statement opposing a statement within the Opasnet page content, i.e. an anti-thesis to a thesis
 
−
|Resolution =  
 
 
|Argumentation =  
 
|Argumentation =  
−
{{comment|1|The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for '''comments''' and '''remarks'''.| }}  
+
 
−
:{{defend|2|This green arrow represents a '''defending argument'''.| }}  
+
:{{comment|1 | The '''argumentation''' contains the actual discussion and is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments. Each argument is either an attack against or a defence for a argument (called target). The original statement can also be used as the target argument. As arguments always point to another argument, they form a hierarchical thread structure. It is also possible to use coordinative arguments where two or more arguments together act like one argument. Each argument is valid unless it has no proponents (a discussant promoting the argument) or it is attacked by a valid argument. In addition to attacks and defences, also comments can be used for asking or offering clarification; comments do not affect the validity of the target argument. For example, this paragraph is a comment.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)}}
−
:{{attack|3|This red arrow represents an '''offending argument'''. | }}  
+
:{{defend|2|If you agree with the argument one level higher (the original statement in this case), you should use this '''defending argument''' template.| --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)}}  
 +
:{{attack|3|If you disagree with the argument one level higher (the original statement in this case), you should use this '''attacking argument''' template.| --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)}}
 +
:{{defend_invalid|4 |This argument is invalidated because it is attacked by a valid argument. If you want to make it valid again, you should successfully invalidate all the attacking arguments.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)}}
 +
::{{attack|5 |This is the argument that attacks argument #4. The numbering does not have any specific order or meaning, they are just used for specifying arguments. It is easiest to use the first free whole number in the sequence for a new argument.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)}}
 
}}
 
}}
 +
 +
'''[[Nugget]]s''' are mainly used in ''a posteriori'' discussions. Nuggets are freely structured text containing the original discussion, from which the actual argumentation is then restructured. A nugget cannot be changed afterwards, and in this respect it is a different kind of contribution than all other parts in [[open assessment]].
  
  
Line 41: Line 39:
 
* {{disclink|Top}} Link to an active discussion.
 
* {{disclink|Top}} Link to an active discussion.
 
* {{reslink|Top}} Link to a resolved discussion.
 
* {{reslink|Top}} Link to a resolved discussion.
−
Because all discussions can be re-activated, the difference between the two is '''not''' whether people are likely to participate in the discussion in the future or not. Instead, {{reslink|Top}} means that the current outcome of the discussion, whether a resolution or a continuing dispute, has been transferred to the main  page, i.e. the contents of the main page reflect the current status of the discussion. In contrats, {{disclink|Top}} means that in the discussion itself, there is some information that is not yet reflected on the main page; therefore, the reader should read the discussion as well to be fully aware of the status of the page. This way, there is not a need to constantly update the main page during an active discussion. The updating can be done when the outcome of the discussion has stabilised.
+
 
 +
Because all discussions can be re-activated, the difference between the two is '''not''' whether people are likely to participate in the discussion in the future or not. Instead, {{reslink|Top}} means that the current outcome of the discussion, whether a full or partial resolution, has been transferred to the main  page, i.e. the contents of the main page reflect the current status of the discussion. In contrats, {{disclink|Top}} means that in the discussion itself, there is some information that is not yet reflected on the main page; therefore, the reader should read the discussion as well to be fully aware of the status of the page. This way, there is not a need to constantly update the main page during an active discussion. The updating can be done when the outcome of the discussion has stabilised.
  
  
 
Furthermore:
 
Furthermore:
−
* If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (clicj the signature button in the toolbar) after that argument.
+
* If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (click the signature button in the toolbar) after that argument.
 
* Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.
 
* Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.
−
* If agreement is reached, i.e. the dispute is settled or resolved, the result can be stated at '''resolution'''.
 
  
−
In order to contribute to the discussion you need to have a user account and be logged in.
+
In order to contribute to a discussion you need to have a user account and be logged in.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
  
 
<references/>
 
<references/>

Revision as of 23:57, 2 January 2010



Scope

Research question about the structure of a discussion
What is a structure for a discussion about an attribute such that it
  • is applicable to any discussion about any attribute in an assessment,
  • can be applied both a priori (to structure a discussion to be held) and a posteriori (to restructure a discussion already held),
  • complies with the pragma-dialectics.

Definition

The structure of the discussion follows the principles of the pragma-dialectics.[1]R↻

Result

The discussion has three, sometimes four parts: statements, argumentation, resolution, and sometimes nuggets. These are briefly described below using a discussion template. Argumentation consists of defending and attacking arguments and comments.

For discussing, the discussion structure should be used. Click the blue capital D in the toolbar on top of the edit window to apply the discussion template. This is how the discussion format appears:

How to read discussions

Statements: The explication of a dispute. It consists of two or more conflicting statements, each of which is promoted by a discussant. There is always an implicit statement that none of the explicit statements are true. Therefore, it is enough to explicate one statement.

Resolution: The resolution is the outcome of the discussion. A full resolution is found when only one of the original statements remains valid. Partial resolutions are situations where some statements have been successfully invalidated, but there are still several conflicting but valid statements. The contents of a resolution are transferred to the actual contents of the attribute. It should be noted that resolutions are always temporary, as even fully resolved discussions can be opened again with new arguments.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:
--1 : The argumentation contains the actual discussion and is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments. Each argument is either an attack against or a defence for a argument (called target). The original statement can also be used as the target argument. As arguments always point to another argument, they form a hierarchical thread structure. It is also possible to use coordinative arguments where two or more arguments together act like one argument. Each argument is valid unless it has no proponents (a discussant promoting the argument) or it is attacked by a valid argument. In addition to attacks and defences, also comments can be used for asking or offering clarification; comments do not affect the validity of the target argument. For example, this paragraph is a comment. --Jouni 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
←2: If you agree with the argument one level higher (the original statement in this case), you should use this defending argument template. --Jouni 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
⇤3: If you disagree with the argument one level higher (the original statement in this case), you should use this attacking argument template. --Jouni 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
←4 This argument is invalidated because it is attacked by a valid argument. If you want to make it valid again, you should successfully invalidate all the attacking arguments. --Jouni 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
⇤5 : This is the argument that attacks argument #4. The numbering does not have any specific order or meaning, they are just used for specifying arguments. It is easiest to use the first free whole number in the sequence for a new argument. --Jouni 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Nuggets are mainly used in a posteriori discussions. Nuggets are freely structured text containing the original discussion, from which the actual argumentation is then restructured. A nugget cannot be changed afterwards, and in this respect it is a different kind of contribution than all other parts in open assessment.


Active and resolved discussions

On the main page, you should make links at the relevant points to the respective discussions. There are two possibilities:

  • D↷ Link to an active discussion.
  • R↻ Link to a resolved discussion.

Because all discussions can be re-activated, the difference between the two is not whether people are likely to participate in the discussion in the future or not. Instead, R↻ means that the current outcome of the discussion, whether a full or partial resolution, has been transferred to the main page, i.e. the contents of the main page reflect the current status of the discussion. In contrats, D↷ means that in the discussion itself, there is some information that is not yet reflected on the main page; therefore, the reader should read the discussion as well to be fully aware of the status of the page. This way, there is not a need to constantly update the main page during an active discussion. The updating can be done when the outcome of the discussion has stabilised.


Furthermore:

  • If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (click the signature button in the toolbar) after that argument.
  • Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.

In order to contribute to a discussion you need to have a user account and be logged in.

References

  1. ↑ Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=Discussion_structure&oldid=14219"