Discussion structure
This page is a variable.
The page identifier is Op_en2957 |
---|
Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
Upload data
|
Contents
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:
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 there are still several conflicting but valid statements. The contents of a resolution are transferred to the actual contents of the attribute; after this, the discussion is called resolved. It should be noted that resolutions are always temporary, as even fully resolved discussions can be opened again with new arguments. (Resolved, i.e., the resolution has been updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
|
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.
Ongoing and resolved discussions
On the main page, you should make links at the relevant points to the respective discussions. There are two possibilities:
Because all discussions can be re-opened, the difference between ongoing and resolved is not whether people are likely to participate in the discussion in the future or not. Instead, a resolved discussion (R↻ ) means that the current outcome of the discussion, whether a full or partial resolution, or not yet a resolution at all, has been transferred to the main page, i.e. the contents of the main page reflect the current status of the discussion. In contrast, an ongoing discussion (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
- ↑ Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.