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).
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.
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).
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.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.