Collaborative argumentation in education, where students work together to construct and critique arguments, is an important social practice in many disciplines and can also develop conceptual ...understanding. This article addresses the evolution of my research agenda on collaborative argumentation from just scaffolding the generation of counterarguments and rebuttals in students' discourse toward what I call critical, integrative argumentation (CIA). The CIA framework involves teaching students to ask critical questions to assess the strength and cogency of arguments. It also involves generating, in addition to conventional refutations, integrative refutations that (a) weigh costs and benefits (or for scientific arguments, the evidence for and plausibility of alternative models), or (b) involve design arguments (or for scientific arguments, the integration of multiple factors and constraints). Issues related to terminology, instruction, student learning progressions, teachers' professional learning, public discourse, and the need to teach complex, critical thinking to students are discussed.
Toulmin's model of argumentation, developed in 1958, has guided much argumentation research in education. However, argumentation theory in philosophy and cognitive science has advanced considerably ...since 1958. There are currently several alternative frameworks of argumentation that can be useful for both research and practice in education. These frameworks include Walton's dialogue theory and Bayesian models of everyday arguments. This article reviews and evaluates these frameworks and shows how each can be applied instructionally (e.g., through the teaching of critical questions or probability modeling) and, from a research standpoint, in evaluating the content and quality of informal arguments. It is concluded that attention to these and other contemporary argumentation frameworks can help move the study of argumentation in education forward.
This article serves two functions. First, it addresses why studying collaborative discourse and collaborative argumentation is important for promoting students’ deep-level understanding of content. A ...literature review is presented examining the evidence for this claim, concluding that engaging in collaborative discourse and argumentation might have long-term effects in consolidating learning gains. Second, the various articles in this special issue are introduced. The articles address important directions for research, including (a) how to promote pedagogically useful collaborative discourse in the classroom and in workplace setting (for example by modeling and soliciting elaborative discourse moves or by engendering “polite” behavioral norms), (b) understanding the role of joint representations and mental models in collaborative discourse, and (c) methodological difficulties with analyzing nonindependent and categorical data. The importance for educational psychologists in understanding the interaction of cognitive and social processes is highlighted.
Although the Toulmin model (
1958
) has dominated argumentation research, it does not provide many tools for evaluating argument quality. Towards that end, we draw on work in philosophy on argument ...schemes, and critical questions for evaluating those schemes. In our approach, we integrate the teaching of critical questions with argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) and with oral and written discourse. AVDs are graphic organizers that prompt students to write arguments and counterarguments on different sides of the vee, and at the bottom of the vee, an integrative paragraph supporting a final conclusion. The present study was conducted in three sections of an undergraduate general education seminar. Two sections, comprising the experimental group, used AVDs containing a critical questions box reflecting questions for the
arguments from consequence
scheme (Walton,
1996
). One section used AVDs without the critical question box. Students completed AVDs prior and during class discussions on social issues (e.g., drug legalization). Over time, students in the experimental group included more refutations related to the critical questions compared to the control group. The effect transferred to an in-class essay where no question prompts were provided, but not to a course paper written on whistleblowing. However, students in the experimental condition did include in their papers more explicit mention of moral principles. We explain these effects in relation to argument schema theory, in particular the development and automatization of a weighing schema. The critical questions appeared to provide students with a structure for evaluating arguments and counterarguments.
This study examined a new prewriting tool, argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs), which are used to write reflective opinion essays. AVDs are based on the theoretical concept of argument-counterargument ...integration, which involves evaluating and integrating both sides of an issue before developing a final conclusion on a controversial question. In a test of the effectiveness of AVDs, 45 undergraduates at a large, southwestern university were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Both groups wrote 4 opinion essays over a 4-week period. The experimental group also received training on using the AVDs, including instruction on criteria for weighing arguments. Results indicated that AVD training was effective in enhancing argument-counterargument integration. Furthermore, examination of integration strategies used by participants revealed a new strategy,
minimization
, which was not previously part of
E. M. Nussbaum and G. Schraw's (2007)
argument-counterargument integration framework. Minimization involves curtailing the importance or extensiveness of a problem or advantage as a heuristic shortcut for weighing advantages and disadvantages. The role of critical questions and argumentation schemata in argument-counterargument integration is discussed.
What is known and objective
The BRAF‐V600E genetic mutation offers a potential targeted therapy for the treatment of papillary craniopharyngiomas.
Case summary
A 35‐year‐old man underwent a ...craniotomy and subtotal resection of a large BRAF‐V600E‐positive papillary craniopharyngioma before referral to our institution. Our treatment included the BRAF‐V600 inhibitor dabrafenib mesylate (75 mg, twice/day) and trametinib dimethyl sulfoxide (2 mg/day). The residual tumour decreased in size by 95% over 21 months without negative side effects.
What is new and conclusion
We reviewed the literature on BRAF‐V600E inhibition as a non‐invasive method of treating papillary craniopharyngiomas harbouring the BRAF‐V600E mutation.
•Efficacy of Critical Reading of Informational Texts (CRIT) scaffold was examined.•CRIT scaffold aims to support critical evaluation and integration of science texts.•Scaffold use was associated with ...more critical source citation on the topic of GMOs.•Students who used the scaffold were more likely to weigh claims in written response.•Scaffold use was also associated with greater likelihood to engage in refutation.
Developing critical processing of online information is one important mission of schooling in the 21st century. However, science teachers often lack an instructional tool they can integrate into existing curricula to support students’ information processing. This study aims to examine the efficacy of the Critical Reading of Informational Texts (CRIT) scaffold on students’ critical integrative argumentation - the dialogic process of weighing, evaluating, and integrating scientific claims. The present study documented the design of the CRIT scaffold to support both critical evaluation and integration of online scientific information. Initial efficacy evidence from a cluster-randomized control group study demonstrated that students who used the scaffold produced written task products that had higher overall argumentative quality and were more likely to support evidence-based conclusions about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), weigh claims using source and evidence quality, and engage in refutation by countering specific claims based on why they are flawed.
This microgenetic case study explores how an undergraduate student (Nolan) in a second-year seminar mastered an argument weighing scheme and used it to organize his writing. The students in this ...seminar completed argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) prior to discussing controversial issues. Students also completed preessays and postessays on a different topic without using AVDs. Through the AVDs, students were provided with critical, evaluative questions related to designing solutions and weighing arguments against counterarguments. In separate work, we report that the intervention was effective in increasing the number of refutations related to the critical questions (Nussbaum & Dove, 2018). Nolan showed particularly strong growth, and this case study analyzes his discourse to generate qualitative insights and hypotheses into his development. Using the conceptual framework of argument-counterargument integration (Nussbaum, 2008b), we analyzed Nolan's written artifacts and discussions to better understand how his proficiency with using the argument scheme developed over time. Our results suggest that Nolan initially displayed piecemeal use of the scheme, but over time, Nolan learned to articulate general principles and to integrate these with specific points regarding benefits and costs, as well as with solution-oriented design statements that further reduced disadvantages. Use of the scheme spontaneously transferred to a novel topic. Extensive engagement in ethical discussions, along with studying ethical theory and answering critical questions on AVDs, may have contributed to his development. Theoretical and practical implications related to teaching argumentative writing in conjunction with oral discourse are discussed.
Educational Impact and Implications Statement
The article examines how the written arguments of an undergraduate sophomore (Nolan) improved to incorporate general principles related to weighing pros and cons during argumentation. Conducted in a general education seminar, students-prior to discussing controversial issues-completed graphic organizers with questions designed to evaluate the strength of arguments. Students also studied basic ethical theory and debated ethical issues that afforded students with practice in weighing factors relating to argument strength. We develop a hypothesis that such practice-in combination with the graphic organizers containing evaluative questions-made it easier for Nolan to weigh arguments and to grasp the usefulness of including moral warrants in these arguments. The study highlights the potential usefulness of ethical discussions, design thinking, and critical questions in developing classroom-based argumentation and better argumentative writing.
The authors investigated ways of encouraging students to consider more counterarguments when writing argumentative texts. One hundred eighty-four undergraduates wrote essays on TV violence. In ...Experiment 1, students given specific goals generated more counterarguments and rebuttals than controls. In Experiment 2, some participants were provided with a text outlining arguments/counterarguments; some were also asked to write a persuasive letter. Prior attitudes toward the topic were also measured. Persuasion instructions negatively affected and text (without persuasion instructions) positively affected counterargumentation and the overall quality of arguments. Text was only effective, however, for students with less extreme prior attitudes. The danger of using persuasion goals and the advantages of using more specific goals (with text) are discussed.
