Module Code: |
H6AC |
Long Title
|
Argument and Critique
|
Title
|
Argument and Critique
|
Module Level: |
LEVEL 6 |
EQF Level: |
5 |
EHEA Level: |
Short Cycle |
Module Author: |
Laura Costelloe |
Departments: |
NCI Learning & Teaching
|
Specifications of the qualifications and experience required of staff |
|
Learning Outcomes |
On successful completion of this module the learner will be able to: |
# |
Learning Outcome Description |
LO1 |
Identify and distinguish the major components of deductive and inductive arguments. |
LO2 |
Recognise the key components of an effective argument. |
LO3 |
Evaluate arguments which support or critique a particular position. |
LO4 |
Deliver effective and convincing arguments on a variety of subjects. |
Dependencies |
Module Recommendations
This is prior learning (or a practical skill) that is required before enrolment on this module. While the prior learning is expressed as named NCI module(s) it also allows for learning (in another module or modules) which is equivalent to the learning specified in the named module(s).
|
No recommendations listed |
Co-requisite Modules
|
No Co-requisite modules listed |
Module Content & Assessment
Indicative Content |
Reasoning: deductive and inductive arguments
- Persuasion and argument
- The role of reason in argument
- Inductive reasoning
- Deductive reasoning
|
Key components of an effective argument.
Discussion and analysis of the key components of an effective argument, e.g. definition, assumptions, premises, evidence, examples, authoritative testimony, satire, irony and sarcasm
|
Evaluate arguments which support or critique a particular position
-Discussion and analysis of a broad range of argument from a variety of sources, including media, film etc.
- Argument critique focusing on thesis, purpose, methods, delivery style
|
Deliver effective and convincing arguments on a variety of subjects.
Learners will work individually and in groups to develop their skills in argument and critique, progressing from short arguments to more lengthy and interactive debates. Peer- and tutor-feedback will be provided throughout.
|
Assessment Breakdown | % |
Coursework | 100.00% |
AssessmentsFull Time
Coursework |
Assessment Type: |
Presentation |
% of total: |
100 |
Assessment Date: |
n/a |
Outcome addressed: |
1,2,3,4 |
Non-Marked: |
No |
Assessment Description: Learners will deliver a number of presentations - both individual and group - throughout the module, initially short in duration (3-5 mins) as formative assessment. Presentations will gradually increase, both in duration and as summative assessment components, e.g. learners will present an analysis of what they believe to be an effective argument. Learners are expected to show clips which focus on specific features of the argument and engage in discussion of their role and function. |
|
No End of Module Assessment |
Reassessment Requirement |
Coursework Only
This module is reassessed solely on the basis of re-submitted coursework. There is no repeat written examination.
|
NCIRL reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment
Module Workload
Module Target Workload Hours 0 Hours |
Workload: Full Time |
Workload Type |
Workload Description |
Hours |
Frequency |
Average Weekly Learner Workload |
Lecture |
per week |
2 |
Once per semester |
0.17 |
Independent Learning |
No Description |
8.5 |
Once per semester |
0.71 |
Total Weekly Contact Hours |
0.17 |
Workload: Part Time |
Workload Type |
Workload Description |
Hours |
Frequency |
Average Weekly Learner Workload |
Independent Learning |
No Description |
8.5 |
Once per semester |
0.71 |
Lecture |
per week |
2 |
Once per semester |
0.17 |
Total Weekly Contact Hours |
0.17 |
Module Resources
Recommended Book Resources |
---|
-
Inch, E.S. and Tudor, K.H.. (2014), Critical Thinking and Communication: the use of reason in argument, 7th ed.. Harlow, Pearson Education.
| Supplementary Book Resources |
---|
-
Feldman, R.. (2014), Reason and Argument, 2nd ed.. Pearson, Harlow.
-
Lee, M.. (2014), Strategies of Argument: essays in ancient ethics, epistemology and logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
-
Swatridge, C.. (2014), The Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
-
Tindale, C.W.. (2004), Rhetorical Argumentation: principles of theory and practice, Sage, London.
| Supplementary Article/Paper Resources |
---|
-
Amgoud, L. and Prade, H.. (2009), Using arguments for making and
explaining decisions, Artificial Intelligence, 173.
-
Davies, M.. (2011), Concept mapping, mind mapping and
argument mapping: what are the
differences and do they matter?, Higher Education, 62(3).
| Other Resources |
---|
|
|