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

Argument wars

A little background on this post. I have never been a strong advocate for educational games. It is difficult for me to separate my personal from my professional reaction to these games. I am not a game player. I am that family member who will not participate in family board or card games. In analyzing my own behavior, there are some forms of competition I find enjoyable (sports) and there are other forms of experience involving competition that I just find irritating. Professionally as an educator, I find learning from games inefficient and when I want to learn something I would prefer a more direct approach.

I do try to understand the interest others find in games and often engage with advocates regarding their support (this may be my competitive side). Usually, these folks agree with my position on learning efficiency, but have some other reason they think games are useful. Perhaps in response to a request for examples of games they would recommend, some resources from iCivics were provided. I have been exploring some of the iCivics resources which include games among what the organization provides. My experience has not changed my mind about efficiency, but I do see the content within the games. The example I suggest here – Argument Wars – happens to hit two topics that interest me professionally (classroom games and argumentation skills) and represents a combination of what I would describe as a simulation and a game. Argument Wars would make a good case for the educators I work with to analyze as either a game or a simulation.

You can explore many of the iCivics resources at no cost. I would encourage you to play this game (simulation) yourself as a way to experience such activities and see what you think. The game (web-based or available as an app) will guide you through the experience and you can play against the machine or with an opponent. This would probably not be what I would recommend for classroom use, but it is a reasonable way to experience the activity.

Here are few images to give you the flavor of the game. As I have already explained, the game will guide you so you give it a try without having to read a tutorial.

Argument wars examines key cases considered by the Supreme Court. Most educators are probably familiar with Brown v. Board of Education so selecting this game would be an interesting way to familiarize yourself with the activity. In the image below, you will see some of the embedded content explaining the case.

Again, you can argue either side of the case and for those interested in the process of argumentation it probably makes sense to try arguing both positions. You select an avatar and in the following image you are asked to select the side you want to take.

This image shows the basis for the game play. You are dealt three argument cards. You then fill out your hand by selecting two more cards – more arguments, strategies, or actions. You make an argument, attempt to refute a position taken by your opponent, remove a weak argument if you are down to only one and know you need a more substantial position, and more. The actions you can take are based on the action cards you have available so you must do the best you can with the arguments and the actions you have available. You earn points based on how the court judges the strength of your decisions. There are four rounds to the competition.

After four rounds, a winner is declared. The game/simulation then explains the outcome of the actual trial.

iCivics was founded by Judge Sandra Day O’Connor in 2009 based on her concern that citizens lacked sufficient understanding of how democracy works. iCivics offers various games among other resources devoted to this goal. [ description from Digital History]

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.

Observing arguments

I think that learning to effectively engage in arguments is the most universally needed skill of our time. Yes, it is far more important than coding, biology, chemistry, art, etc. It is ignored because arguing has a bad reputation and is typically misunderstood. It is ignored because educators are unaware or see it as not relevant to what they teach. It is ignored because educators feel unable to lose control of the process when teaching the skills. Defining arguing as debating may help some. Debate is regarded as more refined although obscure. This is also a major part of the problem, meaningful arguing (taking a position, explaining your reasons for this position, and offering evidence for each reason) is not what so many understand arguing to be. Arguing is not shouting louder than the other guy. Arguing is intended to be combative as an effective way to explore issues and in many situations to seek the truth. Science is about arguing. It is the use of data and data collection to advance a position by correcting inaccurate positions that are completely wrong or need to be extended. Politics should be about arguing, but often is not.

I write about arguing a lot and you can acquire some details by searching this site and considering what I say and following the links I provide.

This post has a slightly different purpose. It proposes that students can learn critical thinking and argumentation and can learn about important issues by observing those skilled in specific areas debate/argue about these areas. It may sound something like the bewildering activity of kids who watched skilled gamers play the games that interest them. It is similar to other uses of modeling in education.

As I have explored argumentation I have found tools and services that I see as offering ways to develop the skills of argumentation. I think observation with guidance can contribute. I think that the guidance, some might say scaffolding, is important. Have learners identify the reasons and evidence used by each side. Have learners identify if participants attempt to refute the reasons and evidence of the opposing side or simply continue to add their own reasons and evidence. Such scaffolding represents the types of tactics I think educators should be good at. The goal is to get students to think about the general strategy and eventually to try out the skills themselves.

I suggest educators might find the recorded debates provided by Intelligence2Debates to be very useful. Educators will likely benefit from the listening themselves (e.g., Can students learn from games?, Is social media good for democracy?), but should also see the potential for use with their students.

The summer is a great time for educators to consider new ideas for next year. Whatever your discipline, check out the list of topics available from the site I reference and consider how you might use some of these resources in your classroom.