Kialo.Com - a service for online debate
My interest in argumentations comes from personal experience and from a careful review of the research of Deanna Kuhn (Kuhn, 2015; Kuhn, Hemberger & KHait, 2016; Kuhn, et al., 2008). My personal experience has mostly involved the frustration of trying to discuss political issues on social media. I often understand that my perspective and those of I am trying to interact with are very different, but I cannot seem to engage with certain individuals at a level I think reveals a clear statement of values and the evidence we are using to support our positions. Of course, I think I am right and the other person is foolish, but I am also aware that I too have biases.
I began to explore Kuhn’s research at about the same time I was trying to engage others on political issues. Kuhn studies the way younger learners engage in differences of opinion. Like most of the “adults” I have observed, she notes that most folks can argue their positions and offer some support, but seem less aware of the specific arguments and related evidence of others taking a different perspective. Kuhn sees teaching a more formal approach to argumentation that can improve the awareness of specific claims and related evidence and as such offer a way to develop critical thinking skills.
Some of Kuhn’s research has involved team arguments using technology-based messaging. I prefer to explain these arranged “discussions” as a type of debate because this fits with some of my own personal experiences and because the term probably carries less negative connotations than “argue”. Kuhn likes the messaging methodology because it provides a visible representation of the back and forth and this record allows further discussion and analysis.
Since I first began writing about “argumentation”, I have been looking for a technology tool I might recommend that would support the teaching of argumentation. I would describe this as the ability to clearly statements supporting a position with associated evidence and to identify statements supporting a contrasting opinion and related evidence for the purpose of careful refutation. I like Kuhn’s position on making the process of argumentation visible and I had hoped to identify a technology tool more specifically suited to this goal.
I have found an online service, Kialo.com, I think educators may find useful. Like so many online social tools, Kialo was not developed specifically for classroom use and has a somewhat different, but relevant, public purpose (the company motto is “making the world more thoughtful”). You can get the idea by visiting the site and viewing (or participating) in discussions (arguments) over the most contested topics of the day (gun control, climate change, universal health care, etc.). This is the public effort of Kialo.
Kialo also offers the opportunity for “private” debates and is this option I see as immedialy relevant in the classroom. The process works like this. As host, you define what I remember debaters calling a resolution. This is the position to be argued - pro and con. To seed the process, you generate 4 pro and 4 con claims. A claim is a justification for being supportive or in opposition to the resolution. It is possible to add a comment and attach a link to a claim. At this point, the host turns the system over for discussion.
Those involved in the discussion can add further claims and add pro and con claims to support or challenge existing claims.
Image - clicking one of the + buttons opens a dialog box for adding a claim and a link.
Image - the tree diagram provides a map of the claims and sub claims.
Kialo also offers a voting system to allow participants to provide a reaction of agreement/disagreement with each claim and with the resolution. In addition, there is a guidance system that takes a user through the voting system.
Kialo could be used in various ways in the private option. Teams might be assigned to take the pro or con position. Others not involved in arguing a position might serve as voters. After a process has been completed, the record of the debate might be discussed by all participants.
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.