Argumentation – Learning Aloud

Show Your Work – Improve Argumentation

Thinking is not visible to self and others and this reality limits both personal analysis and assistance from others. I have always associated the request to show your work associated with learning math so subprocesses of mathematical solutions can be examined, but the advantage can be applied when possible to other processes. I have a personal interest in the ways in which technology can be used to externalize thinking processes and the ways in which technology offers unique opportunities when compared with other methods of externalization such as paper and pen.

Ideas from different areas of interest sometimes come together in unexpected ways. This has been a recent experience for me with a long-term interest in argumentation and digital tools applied to learning. Argumentation may not spark an immediate understanding for educators. It sometimes help if I connect it with the activity of debate, but it relates to many other topics such as critical thinking and the processes of science as well. It relates directly to issues such as the distribution of misinformation online and what might be done to protect us all from this type of influence.

For a time, I was fascinated by the research of Deanna Kuhn and wrote several posts about her findings and educational applications. Kuhn studied what I would describe as the development of argumentation skills and what educational interventions might be applied to change the limitations she observed. It is easy to see many of the limitations of online social behavior in the immaturity of middle school students engaged in a structured argument (debate). Immature interactions involving a topic with multiple sides might be described as egocentric. Even though there is an interaction with a common topic, participants mostly state the positions they take with and frequently without supporting evidence. As they go back and forth, the seldom identify the positions taken by an “opponent” or offer evidence to weaken such positions. Too often, personal attacks follow in the “adult” online version, and little actual examination of supposed issues of interest is involved.

Consideration of the process of clearly stating positions and evidence for and against maps easily to what we mean by critical thinking and the processes of science. In the political sphere what Kuhn and similar researchers investigate relates directly to whether or not policy matters are the focus of differences of opinion.

Externalization and learning to argue effectively

Kuhn proposed that to improve (develop) critical thinking skills learners would benefit from experiences encouraging reflection. An approach that proved productive was based in multiple studies on two techniques for encouraging reflection. Across multiple age groups (middle school, high school, college students) she had pairs of participants argue using online chat. A pair had to agree on a given “move” or statement before submission (externalizing rationales for consideration) and submitting statements in chat both allowed an opportunity to focus on the message with interference from the face-to-face issues that are present in formal debate and to create a record that could be critiqued. In some studies, the participants were asked to complete forms asking for a statement of the positions taken by opponents and evidence offered in support of these positions. The effectiveness of the treatments was examined following training without such scaffolds.

AI arguments result in an external record

I and others have been exploring the experience of arguing with an AI opponent. One insight I had while exploring this activity was that it resulted in an external product that could be examined much in the way Kuhn’s chat transcripts could be examined. Classroom applications seem straightforward. For example, the educator could provide the same prompt to all of the students in the class and ask the students to submit the resulting transcript after an allotted amount of time. Students could be asked to comment on their experiences and selected “arguments” could be displayed for consideration of the group. A more direct approach would use Kuhn’s pairs approach asking that the pairs decide on a chat entry before it was submitted. The interesting thing about AI large language models is that the experience across submissions of the same prompt are different for each individual or for the same individual submitting the prompt a second time.

I have described what an AI argument (debate) looks like and provided an example of a prompt that would initiate the argument and offer evaluation in a previous post. I have included the example I used in that post below. In this example, I am debating the AI service regarding the effectiveness of reading from paper or screen as I thought readers are likely familiar with this controversy.

…

Summary

Critical thinking, the process of science, and effective discussion of controversial topics depends on the skills of argumentation. Without development, the skills of argumentation are self-focused lacking the careful identification and evaluation of opposing ideas. These limitations can be addressed through instructional strategies encouraging reflection and the physical transcript resulting from an argument with an AI-based opponent provides the opportunity for reflection.

References:

Iordanou, K. (2013). Developing Face-to-Face Argumentation Skills: Does Arguing on the Computer Help. Journal of Cognition & Development, 14(2), 292–320.

Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the Computer: A Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer-Supported Environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328

Mayweg-Paus, E., Macagno, F., & Kuhn, D. (2016). Developing Argumentation Strategies in Electronic Dialogs: Is Modeling Effective. Discourse Processes, 53(4), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1040323

WebQuests Meet Argumentation

My Instructional Design and Technology class a week or so ago was discussing WebQuests as an example of a scaffolded information problem-solving task. I assume folks who read this blog have memories of the popularity of WebQuests. I say memories because even good educational ideas seem to fade as newer things come along.

I conclude my classes by having a student volunteer or me when no one has something to present offer a short description of a tech tool or service they feel educators should explore. A student described Parlay – a tool intended to help educators structure discussion. We noticed some similarities of the structure of a Parlay discussion and WebQuest and decided the Parlay approach might be a way to extend a WebQuest into a discussion or a debate.

A Parlay “design” is organized into four components – goals, content, discussion questions, and peer responses. Parlay offers a collection of lessons within what the service describes as the Parlay Universe.

You can also choose to create your own lesson and assign it to a class or maybe eventually contribute it to the Parlay Universe.

I have a favorite WebQuest called the “Snow Goose Dilemma” I created many years ago. I redid this exercise using Parlay and a YouTube video I found within Parlay.

This example can be found at https://go.parlayideas.com?invite_code=4m1@8BhsY. A lesson can be found by sharing a code or a link. This is the link option.

Parlay generates pseudonyms for participants so responses to the discussion questions are anonymous (the teacher has access to a dashboard that provides actual identities and other information about student activity). Other students are then invited to offer feedback (respond) to the question responses. Depending on the content and discussion questions this could easily become a format for lessons in argumentation.

Parlay offers educators a free trial with a cost of $160 per year. This price likely will put many off because it may seem a service one would use occasionally. The company sees things differently. It is too bad there are not other more intermediate opportunities for participation.

Topics and resources for argumentation

A task I have promoted multiple times for middle school and high school classrooms is argumentation. If you use the hashtag for this post, you will find the previous posts in which I describe what argumentation is (think debate) and explain the content area and high thinking skill development opportunities providing students opportunities to engage in formal argumentation offers.

One of the challenges for implementing class argumentation is the identification of issues that lend themselves to debate and the efficient access to the reasoning and evidence providing the background for such interactions. I have previously recommended the work of Kuhn (see the link above) because her book and the proven topics she offers as examples are one concrete way to get started with tested topics. However, you may want to find different topics that are better suited to integration with the topics you prioritize.

One point of departure could be some consideration of what your purpose is. How much do you want to emphasize finding factual information to emphasize positions students take (search and content evaluation), how much are you emphasizing respectful argumentation and the development of higher order skills, or are both important goals. Related to this consideration is the amount of time you want to spend. An argumentation exercise that begins or incorporates online search will simply require more time.

Here are two sources one of which I would suggest is heavily weighted toward a focus on argumentation and the other more weighted toward information evaluation related to argument reasoning and position.

ProCon

ProCon is my example of a site suited to provide the background for an efficient focus on argumentation, I think about the site as being useful to educators in three stages – what are some topics suited to argumentation, what is the background for a specific argument, and what are pro and con points important to this issue. The following three images were selected to exemplify these three stages.

All Sides

All Sides identifies current controversial topics and focuses on offering content sources that have been identified as providing a conservative or liberal bias on the controversy as well as a more centrist source. AllSides offers resources for educators related to how such content could be used. The following images offer an idea of how the content is organized.

Online argumentation can be improved

I try to think carefully about practices I support professionally. Professionally, I am an educator and cognitive researcher. Even when a topic might be relevant to my profession I would not claim I think carefully about that issue. When it comes to social media and the acrimony that can sometimes result from social media interactions, I don’t think this is the case. I believe I can both suggest there is potential in social media interactions and claim that too many are doing it wrong. Personally, I don’t claim that I always do it right, but I do claim I think carefully about how it should be done. This is because I see the damage done, but don’t want the opportunity to be discarded.

I read a lot about arguing (perhaps debate would be a more familiar way to describe what I value) so I think I understand the skills required, the lack of these skills evidenced in so many interactions, and evidence for some of the reasons skills are not present. Like so many practiced skills, performance is a function of proficiency and motivation. One needs to be motivated to learn skills and to apply them.

For educators whom I consider my primary audience and who may be interested in the development of such skills and dispositions as important goals, I have included a couple of resources at the end of this post. Mentioning experts by name in this post might make more sense if you take a look at my references.

In discussing the importance of teacher modeling, Kuhn notes that when it comes to interactions involving possible controversy what teachers model is very important and probably more important than modeling the skills involved. Kuhn describes the common justification for positions taken as “That’s just how I feel” as very common outside of school and what students encounter from peers and too many adults. Part of the benefit in learning argumentation skills is to recognize the inadequacy of this position. Reasons and evidence are important and being able to interact with a focus on reasons and evidence is essential when controversy is involved. Recognizing one has a responsibility to explain reasons and values and to request the same from others is what moves interactions forward.

Kuhn suggests the expectation that others be responsible for explaining reasons and values applies to teachers and textbooks. I assume this applies especially when asked for such justification – why do I need to know this? This can be a challenge. Clearly, “because I say so” and similar appeals to the significance of authority are not sufficient. Some goals are kind of squishy, but still capable of being offered as reasons. Evidence may be more of a challenge. In some cases, the reason may sound something like – “one of the expected purposes of an education is to develop in everyone an understanding of how xxx works so that this common knowledge can be assumed” is the reason. Perhaps evidence might be to point to a relevant disagreement within the general population as an example that this common understanding does not exist.

An important point in understanding argumentation is that even offering a reason with evidence is not equivalent to a resolution. Reasons and evidence for multiple positions exist and are of differing significance. Reasons and evidence can also be directly disputed as valid. Reaching an evaluativist level of knowing is advanced and includes both the recognition of both the subjective and objective. Translated it involves an understanding of what is meant by the commonly recognized phrase “everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”. Hence, it is possible to understand that different individuals have different opinions and also accept that some opinions are more valid than others. Accepting argumentation as valuable means accepting and being able to engage in the exploration of reasons and evidence for the collective purpose of moving understanding in all involved forward.

I don’t see argumentation as capable of resolving all differences of opinion. However, it is a process to see if these differences are well reasoned and backed by evidence. Some differences come down to core values, but it is important to determine if this is really the case and to recognize what these core values actually are.

For deeper exploration and methods for skill acquisition, see the following:

Graff, G., Birkenstein, C. & Durst, R. (2018). They say, I say: Moves that matter in academic writing. Norton.

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L. & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing. Routledge.

Kialo-Edu

I have written previously about my own experiences hosting an online argument/debate using Kialo.com. https://learningaloud.com/blog/2018/05/22/kialo-structured-argumentation].

Kialo organizes the pro and con positions on a stated issue. Others are invited to add to the sample pro and con statements the host uses to initiate the discussion and to respond with pro and con statements to the statements made by others. The developing argument is visually structured as hierarchically organized statements and eventually participants are encouraged to vote on the persuasiveness of component components of the discussion.

A couple of visuals from my own effort may help communicate what this looks like. The first shows the interface for contributing and examining the discussion. The second a visualization of a mature discussion.

Kialo has now spun off a version of its original effort no focused on classroom use [Kialo-Edu.com – https://www.kialo-edu.com. Kialo was always used in classrooms, but this new version allows some separation.

If this is at all interesting, I would encourage your attention to my original description of how the online tool works. Kialo offers content describing the intent of its new service for classrooms [https://www.kialo-edu.com/about] and offers additional background including tutorials, examples, and suggestions for application [https://support.kialo-edu.com/hc/en-us/articles/360035225932-Try-Out-Kialo-in-Five-Simple-Steps-High-School-Classrooms].

Argument analysis

An essential component of the critical thinking involved in issue-based disputes is the capacity to understand the logic and evidence offered in different sides of an argument/debate. Of the skills now deemed essential to 21st-century functioning, engaging in and understanding arguments may be among the most important. The openness of the online world and cable TV channels with specialized political foci would be examples of why the capacity to analyze positions has increased in importance. So, to compete with those who prioritize coding and STEM initiatives, I have been making the case for this overlooked, but critical skill.

I have tried to offer some suggestions for how argumentation/debate could be taught. One example would be the structured approach provided by Kialo. This is a tool that structures an argument for participants and increases participant awareness of the components of an argument as it is being advanced. This post focuses on a template for MindMup which is intended to be used to analyze an argument already made. The core goal in each approach is to increase the awareness of positions taken and related reasons and evidence for these positions. The capacity to step back and consider pro and con reasons and evidence is what is missing in so many naturally occurring debates.

MindMup (you probably note the similarity to MindMap) is a general purpose tool for organizing ideas. The argumentation analysis approach described in the link I provide above is a specialized template for this online tool. The advantage over a more general purpose “mind mapping” tool is the relabeling of common mind mapping tools (e.g., add reason, add objection). As an example, I have reworked a small section of a debate I hosted in Kialo as a MindMup visualization.

Kialo Revisted

Some time ago, I described Kialo – an online service allowing participants to debate a topic proposed by one of the participants. I proposed that Kialo would offer educators a great tool for teaching argumentation which I think is an essential skill if we are ever to escape the contentiousness of our present time. The capacity to engage others with different perspectives is such a necessary skill and may possibly be a skill best developed in an educational setting. I encourage you to read the post I link above for a more complete analysis of this issue. The image I display here is a visual depiction of the debate I described in this analysis.

I have had a Kialo discussion/debate in play for a few months. The debate concerned the role textbooks should play in K-12 classrooms. I appreciate those who have discovered this discussion and taken the time to weigh in. It is time to move beyond the initial discussion of pro and con issues on this topic. Kialo developers propose that voting on the positions advanced should wait until a number of individuals have had the opportunity to participate and then open voting. I think now is the time.

I encourage you to vote on the logic of the debate. If you would like to add your own arguments, do so first.

To Vote

The Kialo developers propose the following of a “standard” approach (how you see the positions taken based on your own perspective) is to work your way from the bottom up. Other approaches are useful for instructional reasons, but this is what they propose if individuals are acting on their own positions. The image at the left shows the Kialo view as it appears on my phone. The “box tree” at the top represents the structure of the debate. The very top box contains the original proposal and the boxes on the next row show arguments for and against this original proposal. The next row presents argument for and against a supporting argument.

You may not see all of the arguments actually registered. This is necessary to make the display practical on smaller screens. If you click on a box, other boxes may appear below. You continue working your way down until no more boxes are revealed.

Once you reach the bottom of a “strand”, the standard approach asks that you evaluate the impact of a claim on the claim it is intended to support (the claim to which it is linked). You are not being asked to evaluate the claim independently. Does a claim offer solid support for the claim immediately above it. The original author of each statement is assumed to have made this claim in this fashion and the assumption made is that the author positioned it appropriately to this end.

To evaluate the extent to which you feel the claim is appropriate (the system calls this voting), click on the horizontal bar at the top of a claim (see the image). This will reveal the ratings from which you can make a selection. Work your way upward making these judgments and finally “vote” on the most basic proposition.

Any structured experience is likely to have flaws and limitations. I am certain this is true of Kialo. However, my intent here is to have educators use it as intended (I am assuming my description is accurate) and to gain some insight into the proposal that this experience offers a way to think more analytically about a complex topic. The core concern about personal decision making on contentious issues is that individuals focus on their own perspective. The understand their position and their arguments, but fail to recognize the positions and related arguments for such positions offered by others. Kialo is intended to make obvious both the logic and supporting arguments of both sides.

My Kialo example is public and this would probably not be the way educators would use this tool. It is the only practical way I can provide a real example and encourage exploration. Use this link to explore the existing “debate”. I encourage you to follow the instructions above and vote as a way to explore what the various positions others have taken and to explore the potential of this tool.