Argumentation in a changing world

Article

Abstract

Critical reasoning has been recognized as a valuable educational goal since the end of the nineteenth century. However, the educational programs to reach this goal have changed dramatically during the twentieth century and moved to a dialogic approach. The shift to dialogism in programs to promote critical reasoning brings challenges concerning evaluation. We depict such a program here. This program is based on the use of graphic tools for argumentation in e-discussions. We focus on one history teacher who implemented the program in his class during a period of 7 months. In a design-based research cycle, we investigate the process of finding proper criteria to evaluate the program and to improve it. We show that the criteria of coherence, decisiveness and openness are appropriate for evaluating the program as they stem from pedagogical principles (autonomy, collaboration, commitment to reasoning, ethical communication, procedural mediation, etc.) that are central to a dialogic approach for critical reasoning education. We show that the history course was successful according to those criteria, but not successful according to other more traditional criteria. We discuss whether these differential performances suggest new standards for critical reasoning, actions to improve the program, or both.

Keywords

Argumentation Dialogism Critical reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.).Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NL: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Frankfurt: Rütten & Loening.Google Scholar
  6. Cazden, B. C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2005). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan, (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005. Computer support for collaborative learning: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 170–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  11. Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press (Original work published in 1927).Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers and Education, 45(3), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scardamalia, M. A., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwarz, B. B. (2003). Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities. The International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwarz, B. B. (2005). Do EU funded projects enable collaboration between scientists? The case of R&D in web-based Collaborative Learning Environments. Computers and Education, 45, 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: fostering argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). Designing CSCL argumentative environments for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Säljö (Ed.), Information and communication technology and the transformation of learning practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
  23. Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirshner, J. M. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–204). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. van Diggelen, W., Overdijk, M., & De-Groot, R. (2005). ‘Say it out loud in writing’: A dialectical inquiry into the potentials and pitfalls of computer supported argumentative discussions. Paper presented at CSCL 2005; May 30 – June 4, 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  27. Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationThe Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations