Evaluating the Quality of Argumentation: the Role of Epistemic Ideals and Reliable Processes

In this paper, we provide a new framework to analyze the quality of oral and written argumentation based on the Aims, Ideals, and Reliable processes (AIR) model of epistemic cognition and practices. To date, the prevailing analytic schemes for evaluating argumentation have largely focused on argument structure. We show that these schemes, while valuable in attending to structural aspects of good versus bad arguments, do not account for other important yet often overlooked aspects of argument quality. We develop a complementary framework for analyzing arguments that emphasizes the role of epistemic ideals and reliable epistemic processes in argument quality. We outline our theoretical framework and provide examples of how it can capture aspects of quality that are missed by other frameworks. Then we illustrate the application of our method to analyze seventh graders' written essays and oral discourse in science classes implementing model-based inquiry instruction.