Argumentation – Page 2 – Learning Aloud

Kialo – structured argumentation

Kialo’s mission statement is to “empower reason” in the midst of a social media environment that seems to have lost the capacity to enable meaningful discussion. I see a great opportunity for educators here while Kialo has a broader focus. In a way, Kialo is similar to Hypothes.is, a service which wanted participants to “annotate the web”, both expressing a desire to develop services providing a way for all to participate in addressing important issues.

I am interested in the potential of Kialo because I have written about argumentation (similar to debate) as an important learning activity. My perspective has been strongly influenced by the work of Deana Kuhn who writes about the limitations of the perspective students often take in considering controversial topics and the value of teaching argumentation as a way to address these limitations and to develop critical thinking skills.

Kialo allows a host to state a thesis (e.g., Educators should abandon traditional textbooks and use projects and online resources), seed a discussion with several pro and con statements, and then invite others to react.

The “discussion” can be made public or shared with designated others (considered private). Invited participants can rate their level of agreement with the original premise (A), rate their agreement with specific pro or con statements (B), or add their own pro or con statements (C). They can also add their pro or con statements in reaction to existing pro or con statements. Comments and links can be attached to pro or con statements as a way of adding supporting evidence.

My thinking was that this service offers a way to implement some of the techniques suggested by Kuhn. Dr. Kuhn liked to use a simple messaging technique allowing participants to post brief arguments and evidence to each other. The value in this approach in contrast to a traditional verbal debate was the concrete record of comments allowing for followup and analysis. Kialo would allow this and has far more detailed opportunities for analysis should users want more.

Should you want to explore, I have posted the “abandon textbook” Kialo project and you are invited to participate.

Coding vs argumentation – final segment

This is the final segment of my exploration of the argument contrasting the value of teaching coding vs. teaching argumentation in K12 classrooms.

Reasons to support argumentation

First, to review, the following were my proposed reasons to support the “teach argumentation” position.

Capacity to analyze reasons and evidence essential when information sources must be evaluated
Process of science involves reasoning from evidence
Argumentation is a productive social process increasing understanding when positions differ

There is a large body of research exploring argumentation skills, whether educational interventions can develop these skills, and whether specific techniques are successful in developing argumentation skills. The reasons I have offered in support of argumentation would require that evidence of this type exist, but would also require that the general skill of argumentation be applied in specific areas to specific ends. I would regard the demonstration that these skills can be developed as equivalent to the reasons that there are jobs for computer programmers. If you value the outcome, then the development of the skill is important.

Support is easy to find.

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.

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with Me: Argument as a Path to Developing Students’ Thinking and Writing.

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44, 46-53.

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, Richard C., & Kuo, L. J. (2007). Teaching and Learning Argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449-472.

What about source evaluation as an outcome? Think of this as being able to evaluate the information arguments we encounter daily.

Lin, T.-J., Horng, R.-Y., & Anderson, R. C. (2014). Effects of Argument Scaffolding and Source Credibility on Science Text Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 264-282.

Importance of argumentation in STEM areas – the process of science involves the key processes of argumentation hence the development of argumentation skill is important in appreciating science or taking a scientific perspective.

Lin, T.-J., Horng, R.-Y., & Anderson, R. C. (2014). Effects of Argument Scaffolding and Source Credibility on Science Text Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 264-282.

Lee, H.-S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581-605.

Some thoughts on counter arguments.

Since the requirements for near and far transfer were surfaced as part of the evaluation of the coding research and the amount of time required for transfer of coding to other cognitive skill areas was considered, I think it relevant to note the amount of time invested in some of the argumentation research. For example, the Kuhn research (e.g., her book) involved studies of classroom programs that spanned two years. The practical implications here would seem similar to concerns raised regarding “hour of code” and other short-term efforts to develop computational thinking. A lesson on argumentation here or there is not what the research tends to evaluate.
I am also not certain I would argue that argumentation research assumes the goal is to demonstrate the far transfer expected of coding research (computer programming problem solving to other problem-solving tasks). The identification of reasons and reason related evidence or the capacity to identify these same factors in the positions taken by others might be more a near transfer task when applied in different areas (science, social issues, etc).

Arguing about arguing

Indulge me in an intellectual exercise. Begin by assuming there is room in the curriculum for an addition – a different course or at least a learning activity requiring a significant commitment of time. Ignore the typical reaction of “we already have far too much to do”. Without taking on the issue of time, just assume that it is useful to be open to considering priorities as they exist and to consider the possibility of how best to spend whatever time is available.

The task I am proposing to evaluate the value of adding either coding vs argumentation.

I am not certain I know what the outcome of this choice should be. I do think I know enough to know that a sound case can be made for both alternatives and that others should at least recognize this same point before assuming they can promote either of the alternatives. In the circles I most commonly frequent, I assume that most would be willing to promote coding. However, this is because coding is the option most think they understand. Without intending to offend anyone, I would propose that most coding promoters are not actually coders themselves and most are nearly unaware of argumentation.

Let me quickly provide a brief description of argumentation. I would describe argumentation as the processes involved in taking and defending a position. It requires the capacity to explain a position, offer reasons for this position, and offer evidence in favor of this position. It requires the recognition that others may not share this same position, the ability to recognize the reasons and evidence offered in support of this alternate position and the ability to compare and contrast the reasons and evidence for these opposing positions. Developmentally, we know that argumentation skills are acquired slowly and that the more advanced skills of analyzing the rationale offered by others is late to show up if this capacity develops at all. I hope this brief description allows a connection of what are likely more well known concepts such as critical thinking, persuasion, deep reading, and scientific reasoning.

It might even be possible to return to my initial challenge and use it as a “meta” example of argumentation – arguing about arguing. Having taken one position or the other, what are the reasons and evidence likely to be advanced in support of each alternative and what are the likely counters to these reasons and the supporting evidence.

I will give you some time to think before I offer my own analysis.

Awareness of the opposition

Understanding argumentation is likely very important to wading through political news in a productive way. Argumentation involves taking positions and refuting opposing positions based on the careful identification of reasons and the evidence behind those reasons. It is a way to get beyond the noise and the emotion when decisions must be made in contentious situations. Argumentation is a productive process that requires careful attention to the positions we already hold (are there actually reasons and is there actually evidence) and attention to the efforts of those with a different perspective to support their position. The externalization of positions is a way to learn. (Yes, I have been reading about the educational potential of argumentation and I see the educational applications as based on similar principles as my description of authoring/teaching to learn). Educators might want to consider developing argumentation skills as relevant to the educational emphasis on the development of 21st-century skills and particularly critical thinking.

As often seems to happen for me, reading about one issue sensitizes me to another. The Wall Street Journal published a piece and proposed a service related to developing awareness of extreme political positions contrary to your own. The proposed service took advantage of “research” conducted by Facebook regarding extreme political positions. It was not clear that the Facebook research was related to the accusation that Facebook promoted liberal news stories over conservative stories, but interest in this topic likely encouraged interest in this research and the WSJ awareness of the research. Facebook researchers published a piece in Science (I admit I have not read the original research) on “very” polarized content and the database for this content seems to be the starting point for the WSJ work.

To be clear, the core issue in the WSJ article seems similar to Pariser’s concern that personalized search creates a filter bubble in which individuals are more likely to come in contact with information consistent with existing values rather than information that reflects reality. The idea is that our online history biases what is presented to us because we are likely to regard such results as a successful search and search algorithms want to provide us successful search results. The WSJ article mentions this issue without actually demonstrating this is a reality. This is not the point. What the WSJ article is trying to do (if I understand the intention apart from the other content provided) is to offer the reader a side by side comparison of positions taken on a popular political topic. It is more a way to bring to the attention of the reader extreme contrasting views as a way to encourage awareness.

I found it very interesting to examine the content and to try to mindfully apply the reasons and evidence test as a way to examine the contrasting extremes. I would encourage you do a similar thing. Take an issue – gun control, climate change – and review some of the extreme “news” appearing on Facebook. The WSJ service makes it easy to explore some sample posts. What is the evidence offered in justifying any reasons given? I think approaching this demonstration using this technique adds something to what the WSJ proposes.