Most current approaches used in educational research and practice to evaluate arguments are based on Toulmin’s (1958) Argument Pattern (TAP), which defines the structure and core elements of an argument, such as claims, data, and warrants. Assessments based on TAP usually involve awarding credit for the number of structural elements present in an argument. In this presentation, we discuss some limitations of such assessments, including the absence of criteria for evaluating the quality of the argument elements. We then present an alternative framework, based on the Rational Force Model (RFM), which originated from the work of Nordic philosopher Arne Næss (1959). Using examples from argumentative writing and excerpts from philosophical dialogues, we demonstrate the potential of the RFM to improve understanding of the quality of argumentation by focusing on the acceptability and relevance of argument elements. We then discuss potential uses of the RFM in the context of P4wC. These include:

1. Researcher use of the RFM in evaluation of P4wC interventions through the analysis of participants’ argumentative writing.

2. Researcher use of the RFM in evaluation of P4wC interventions through the analysis of dialogue transcripts. 

3. Educational use of the RFM in teaching effective argumentation in facilitator training

4. Facilitator use of the RFM during philosophical dialogues.

5. Facilitator and participant use of the RFM in structuring and building joint understandings of argumentation in a dialogue.