Tag: argue

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’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.