Examining Argument Elements and Logical Fallacies of English Education Students in Oral Discussion
Abstract
This study aims to report on the argument elements and logical fallacies performed by English education students. This study is framed within a descriptive qualitative study in that it interprets the ways students of English education deliver their arguments. The data were collected through observation, recording and in-depth interviews on the objects studied. The findings of this study showed that the students’ ability to present logical arguments varies with the dominant label in the “non-standard argument†category. In regard to the logical fallacy, hasty generalization becomes the most general logical fallacy found in students’ arguments, followed by the appeal to pity, the appeal to fear, the questionable statistics, the slippery slope, the appeal to the bandwagon, the circular reasoning, the pointing to another wrong, and the personal attack. Based on the interview, lack of understanding of arguments and logical fallacies, limited vocabularies, as well as nervousness are identified as the possible causes of these phenomenons. Finally, it is suggested that students should be given exposures on how to structurize the logical arguments and avoid logical fallacies.
References
Aravind, B. R., & Rajasekaran, V. (2019). Technological modality to influence persuasive and argumentative vocabulary for effective communication with reference to selected TED talk videos. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 7(5), 165–170.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Boghossian, P. (2002). How to make an argument. The Clearing House, 76(2), 107–109.
Bransford J D Brown A L, C. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Budden, L. (2007). Critical Thinking Skills. Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 25(1/2), 174.
El Khoiri, N., & Widiati, U. (2017). Logical Fallacies in Indonesian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing: Students’ Perspectives. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 71–81.
Fogelin, R. J., Hodges, W., & Kirwan, C. (1980). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic.
Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can’t write arguments. English in Education, 18(2), 73–84.
Gall, M. D., & Gillett, M. (1980). The discussion method in classroom teaching. Theory into Practice, 19(2), 98–103.
Haidara, Y. (2016). Psychological Factor Affecting English Speaking Performance for the English Learners in Indonesia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 1501–1505.
Inayati, D., & Emaliana, I. (2017). The Relationship among Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ Beliefs about Language Learning, Pedagogical Beliefs, and Beliefs about ICT Integration. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 83–99.
Kemerling, G. (2002). A dictionary of philosophical terms and names.
Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry. In Arguing to learn (pp. 261–269). Springer.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
Lunsford, A. A., Ruszkiewicz, J. J., & Walters, K. (2004). Everything’s an Argument. Bedford/St. Martin’s Boston.
Mayfield, M. (2014). Thinking for yourself. Cengage Learning.
Muhammad, Y. S. (2018). Premise : Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics AN ANALYSIS OF EFL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES IN SPEECH PRODUCTION by. Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 2, 15–34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328101084_AN_ANALYSIS_OF_EFL_JUNIOR_HIGH_SCHOOL_STUDENTS’_DIFFICULTIES_IN_SPEECH_PRODUCTION
Quinn, S. (2009). Debating in the World Schools style: a guide. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N1_Zjo9GDJ8C&pg=PA9&source=gbs_toc_r&hl=en - v=onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.
Rodriguez, M., & Sadowki, M. (2000). Effects of rote, context, keyword, and context/keyword methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(2), 385–412.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Warren, J. E. (2010). Taming the warrant in Toulmin’s model of argument. English Journal, 41–46.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2020 Tell : Teaching of English Language and Literature Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
