Incorrect arguments of scientific discourse in pedagogical texts, or samples for non-imitation

Introduction. Modern humanities are moving towards compliance with the requirement of evidence and comprehensive validity of their conclusions, the adequacy of the methods used and re­search strategies to the results obtained. This problem can be briefly summarised as a movement towards argumentative correctness. In the sciences of education, this requirement plays an extremely important role, since it allows one to find tools for the implementation of practical solutions in various segments of education and upbringing. However, the real state of pedagogical textual discourse demonstrates a lot of serious problems. Despite the types and regulations of empirical, theoretical and contextual substan­tiation long established in classical logic, the authors of scientific pedagogical texts often violate the framework of a meaningful and logically correct discourse. The arguments put forward are often unable to either confirm or refute the conclusions of the authors; sometimes they require serious additions and corrections. This seriously undermines the degree of trust of the reading community (both theorists and practitioners) in the conclusions proposed by the authors, reduces the public authority of pedagogical science and undermines faith in its ability to constructively influence educational practice. Therefore, the need for methodological “intervention” in the argumentative field of scientific pedagogy can be con­sidered quite conditioned. Such a research initiative could be the first step on the trajectory of the return of pedagogy to meet the criterion of methodological correctness. This conclusion is supported by the studies of European philosophers of education, which, together with the authors’ analysis, determines the relevance of the chosen topic of the article.

Aim. The present research aims to identify and justify the typology of incorrect arguments in ped­agogical texts; and to display the wide spread of incorrect arguments as a field for promising research activities.

Results. The results of the study are a typology of incorrect arguments, including: a) arguments that are untenable and inadequate to the defended theses; b) arguments that require serious concretisation and detail; c) structurally complex arguments, which are partially adequate, but, otherwise, they require a radical revision. The typology is added by not being placed on a par with the above three types of argu­ments, denoted by the cliché “complex argumentation palette”.

Methodology and research methods. The research methods were: analysis of the Russian and foreign texts containing incorrect arguments; a selection of sources containing the most widespread argumen­tation errors; inductive generalisation to construct and substantiate the typology of incorrect arguments in pedagogy; reflection of the result obtained and identification of fragments of the designated topic that are relevant for prospective research.

Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty lies in the transfer of the research focus from the traditional designation by pedagogy methodologists of the criteria for the correctness of pedagogical discourse arguments to the identification of a typology of methodologically incorrect arguments, including three adjacent elements, supplemented by an element in which the three above are intertwined in a complex way. The totality of the results obtained can be displayed as a “constructive prohibition” criterion, illustrating to the scientific community ways to justify the results that must be avoided.

Practical significance. The practical significance of the results lies in the specific guidelines for incor­rect arguments of scientific discourse, which can be metaphorically clichéd as an “example for non-imi­tation” and, on this basis, increase the degree of adequacy of the arguments to the thesis being defended in one’s own texts.

1. Ivin A. A. Logika = Logic [Internet]. Moscow: Publishing House ONIKS; 2008 [cited 2023 Aug 01]. 336 p. Available from: https://керпцобр.рф/data/documents/Ivin-A.A.-Logika.-Uchebnoe-posobie.pdf (In Russ.)

2. Bresler L., Cooper D., Palmer J. (Eds.). Fifty modern thinkers on education: From Piaget to the present. 1st edition. New York: Routledge; 2001. DOI: 10.4324/9780203464694

3. Koskinen H. J. Antecedent recognition: Some problematic educational implications of the very notion. Journal of Philosophy of Education. 2018; 52 (1): 178–190. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9752.12276

4. Pritchard D. Epistemic virtue and the epistemology of education. Journal of Philosophy of Educa­tion. 2013; 47 (2): 236–247. DOI: 10.1002/9781118721254.ch6

5. Kallio H., Virta K., Kallio M. Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 7 (2): 94–122. DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2018.2789

6. Ennis R. H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi. 2018; 37 (1): 165–184. DOI: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

7. Zenker F. Introduction: Reasoning, argumentation, and critical thinking instruction. Topoi. 2018; 37 (1): 91–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11245-016-9416-x

8. Snaza N. Aleatory entanglements: (Post)humanism, hospitality and attunement – A response to Hugo Letiche. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2018; 14: 256–272. DOI: 10.1080/15505170.2017.1398700

9. Letiche H. Bewildering pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2017; 14: 236–255. DOI: 10.1080/15505170.2017.1335662

10. Billig Sh. H., Waterman A. S. Studying service-learning: Innovations in education research methodology [Internet]. London: Routledge; 2014 [cited 2023 Jul 10]. 276 p. Available from: https://ar­chive.org/details/studyingservicel0000unse/page/n9/mode/2up

11. Shirish T. S. Research methodology in education. USA: Lulu Publication; 2013. 122 p.

12. Alexander Н. A. What is critical about critical pedagogy? Conflicting conceptions of criticism in the curriculum. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2016; 50 (10): 903–916. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1228519

13. Alexander P. A. Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: Challenges of con­ceptualization, complexity, and competence. Educational Psychologist. 2017; 25 (4): 307–314. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1350181

14. Barczyński B. J., Kalina R. M. Science of martial arts – example of the dilemma in classifying new interdisciplinary sciences in the global systems of the science evaluation and the social consequences of courageous decisions. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015; 3: 1203–1210. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.199

15. Baxter Magolda M. B. Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflec­tion. Educational Psychologist. 2004; 39 (1): 31–42. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4

16. Leś T. The research potential of educational theory: On the specific characteristics of the issues of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017; 49 (14): 1428–1440. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1313716

17. Koivuniemi M., Järvenoja H., Järvelä S. Teacher education students’ strategic activities in chal­lenging collaborative learning situations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2018; 19: 109–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.002

18. Rodek V. Learning and its effectiveness in students’ self-reflection. The New Educational Review. 2019; 55: 112–120. DOI: 10.15804/tner.2019.55.1.09

19. Kornienko A. A. The concept of knowledge society in the ontology of modern society. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 166: 378–386. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.540

20. Rapanta C. Argumentation as critically oriented pedagogical dialogue. Informal Logic. 2019; 39 (1). DOI: 10.22329/il.v39i1.5116

21. Rapanta C. Teaching as abductive reasoning: The role of argumentation. Informal Logic. 2018; 38 (2): 293–311. DOI: 10.22329/il.v38i2.4849

22. Kim M.-Y., Wilkinson I. A. G. What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and re­constructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2019; 21: 70–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003

23. Coney C. L. Critical thinking in its contexts and in itself. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2014; 47 (5): 515–528. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2014.883963

24. Brezinka W. Philosophy of educational knowledge: An introduction to the foundations of sci­ence of education, philosophy of education and practical pedagogics. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. 303 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-2586-4

25. Gardiner G. Teleologies and the methodology of epistemology [Internet]. In: Greco J., Hender­son D. (Eds.). Epistemic evaluation: Purposeful epistemology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2015 [cited 2023 Jun 25]. p. 31–45. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3242372

26. Chekour M., Laafou M., Janati-Idrissi R. What are the adequate pedagogical approaches for teaching scientific disciplines? Physics as a case study. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 2018; 8 (2): 141–148. DOI: 10.2478/jesr-2018-0025

27. Rapanta C., Macagno, F. Evaluation and promotion of argumentative reasoning among uni­versity students: The case of academic writing. Revista Lusofona de Educacao. 2019; 45: 125–142. DOI: 10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle45.09

28. Skidmore D., Murakami K. Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications and Multilingual Matters; 2016. 289 p.

29. Rose D. Analysing pedagogic discourse: An approach from genre and register. Functional Lin­guist. 2014; 1 (11). DOI: 10.1186/s40554-014-0011-4

30. Tariqah A. Nuriddin. Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom by bell hooks. Teaching Sociol­ogy. 2012; 40 (2): 182–183. DOI: 10.2307/41502743

31. Irawan N., Valentina T. F. The Language of argumentation: A book review. Journal of Language and Education. 2021; 7 (2): 274–276. DOI: 10.17323/jle.2021.12538

32. Korzhuev A. V., Golovina N. V., Kontarov N. A., Ikrennikova Yu. B. Typology of “Displased Crit­icism” in scientific pedagogical dialogues as a methodological phenomenon. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2023; 6 (25): 12–37. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2023-6-12-37 (In Russ.)

33. Solodova E. A. Novye modeli v sisteme obrazovaniya. Sinergeticheskiy podkhod = New models in the education system. Synergistic approach. Moscow: Publishing House Librokom; 2011. 342 p. (In Russ.)

34. Lektorskiy V. S. Nauka glazami gumanitariya = Science through the eyes of a humanitarian per­son [Internet]. Moscow: Publishing House Progress-Tradicija; 2005 [cited 2023 Aug 01]. 688 p. Available from: https://platona.net/load/knigi_po_filosofii/filosofija_nauki_tekhniki/lektorskij_v_a_nauka_glazami_gumanitarija/30-1-0-2953 (In Russ.)

35. Novikov A. M. Metodologiya obrazovaniya = Education methodology [Internet]. Moscow: Pub­lishing House Egves; 2006 [cited 2023 Aug 01]. 488 p. Available from: http://anovikov.ru/books/metod_ob.pdf (In Russ.)

36. Lyamzin M. A. The origin of L. S. Vygotsky’s scientific creativeness. Vestnik MGLU. Obrazovanie i pedagogicheskie nauki = Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Education and Teaching. 2016; 2 (766): 69–76. (In Russ.)

37. Aleksandrova E. A., Asadullin R. M., Berezhnova Е. V., et al. Metodologiya pedagogiki = Method­ology of pedagogy [Internet]. Moscow: Publishing House Infra-M; 2020. 96 p. DOI: 10.12737/monogra­phy_594a85bac8dd55.84618831