Tag: argumentation

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.

Loading

Drafting Board

Argumentation and the value of argumentation in developing critical thinking skills has been a favorite topic. Every time I watch coverage of the present presidential race with all of the charges, counter-charges, and fact checking, I think about what it takes to digest all of this and make an informed decision. Most of my previous commentary was based on the research of Deanna Kuhn and what to me seems like debate.

iCivics takes a different approach with a focus on argumentative writing. They have developed an online tool called Drafting Board that takes scaffolds the process of developing a sound argument. A variety of possible issues and background material are also provided. iCivics is a free resource (they would appreciate contributions).

draftingboard

Loading

Both Sides Now

[Note – the Joni Mitchell song makes a good background for this post]

Edtech writers tend to get on themes that dominate what they write about for a period of time. I think it helps if the theme is a bit unique so readers learn about things they may not have encountered elsewhere. My recent interest has been argumentation. The skills of argumentation (think debate) are key to critical thinking. Critical thinking is key to understanding effective scientific research and essential in being truly informed in an era of information noise.

There are plenty of good resources for educators wanting to develop argumentation skills in their students (see the link to some of my previous comments). However, experiencing a quality argument may be more convincing. I recommend taking a look at Intelligence Squared. This site features debates on a wide variety of topics. Edtech types may enjoy the debate considering whether or not the Internet makes us dumb. So, what you get is an intelligent discussion – think TED talk from both sides of an issue.

The site also does a great job of providing background content on the issues related to individual debates. Check the Education heading and you can see what resources are offered to educators.

Loading

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).

Loading

Evidence is the hard part

 

This is the continuation of my coding vs. argumentation debate. Argumentation requires that those involved consider more than their own positions. The capacity to recognize the reasons and rationale for competing positions is required and represents a developmental advance in reasoning/critical thinking.

Argumentation requires that those involved consider more than their own positions. The capacity to recognize the reasons and rationale for competing positions is required and represents a developmental advance in reasoning/critical thinking.

Reasons:

Reasons to support coding

  • Programming is an important vocational skill
  • Coding is a way to gain greater insight into how technology works
  • Computational thinking transfers

Reasons to support argumentation

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

The identification of reasons is just the beginning. While reasons are not always identified, the validity of a reason must be established.

As my example advances and I try to do my best to take both competing positions, things get even more challenging. This would not typically be a requirement of a classroom exercise, but I am taking on this challenge to provide a more realistic example. I do have a personal opinion regarding the strength of these two positions (given my challenge that schools take on one addition to the curriculum or the other). I would certainly welcome additions if you feel your own position has been slighted.

What must be established:

Is there evidence to support a reason? What is the evidence?

When is one reason superior to another? What can be claimed to dispute the weight of a reason?

More to come.

Loading