Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Why do we formulate arguments? Usually, things such as persuading opponents, finding consensus, and justifying knowledge are listed as functions of arguments. But arguments can also be used to stimulate reflection on one’s own reasoning. Since this cognitive function of arguments should be important to improve the quality of people’s arguments and reasoning, for learning processes, for coping with “wicked problems,” and for the resolution of conflicts, it deserves to be studied in its own right. This contribution develops first steps towards a theory of reflective argumentation. It provides a definition of reflective argumentation, justifies its importance, delineates it from other cognitive functions of argumentation in a new classification of argument functions, and it discusses how reflection on one’s own reasoning can be stimulated by arguments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See for different classifications of argument functions along these lines, but with varying terminology, Wenzel (1979), Walton (1989, pp. 3–10), Tindale (1999, pp. 1–6), and Lumer (2005b). A longer list of seven “uses of argument” has been provided by Blair (2004, pp. 139–141). Focusing on “The Uses of Argument in Communicative Contexts,” Pinto (2010) provided a detailed overview “of the main categories of effect which arguments can have, and the main sub-types within each category” (p. 227). In Sect. 3 of this paper I will re-organize all these approaches in a new classification of argument functions or uses.

  2. I am grateful to Martin Eppler who pointed out in personal communication that finding out which beliefs and values one perceives as important or which value differences can lead to disagreements could also be a function of reflective argumentation.

  3. Note that my view that intentions are necessary for arguments is not shared by David Hitchcock. In personal communication he pointed out that my view implies that arguments are tokens, not types. But this should not pose any problem since we can refer to the same token when we talk about an argument, or if we interpret two arguments as being identical, we can say these are tokens of the same type.

  4. Alternatively, as Goddu (2009, p. 10) suggests, the definition of argument could be extended by allowing that premises can be both assertives and what he calls “suppositives,” i.e., propositions that are just supposed, hypothesized, or pretended.

  5. This is indeed the position Van Eemeren et al. (2014) hold in their Handbook of Argumentation Theory: “In our usage … a communicative activity that is not aimed at resolving a difference of opinion is not considered as argumentation” (p. 2, Fn. 1).

  6. My thanks go to an anonymous reviewer for this example.

  7. Elsewhere, I show how such an approach to stimulate a change of perspective with regard to wicked problems can be realized in ethics education (Hoffmann and Borenstein 2014).

  8. See, for example, Bar-Tal (2007). Earlier versions of the following considerations have been published in Hoffmann (2008), particularly pp. 4–10, and Hoffmann (2011a), pp. 141–147.

  9. There is a huge and ever growing literature in cognitive science and related disciplines on “diagrammatic” or “model-based reasoning,” and in educational sciences on the role of representations for learning. Since it would be impossible to discuss all this here, I limit myself to a few ideas that are central to my approach to reflective argumentation. These ideas go back to what Peirce developed more than a hundred years ago.

  10. Lawson himself provides as an example Paul Loewi’s discovery that the neuronal stimulation of muscles is triggered by chemical, not electrical signals (Lawson 2006, pp. 111–113). A more comprehensive representation of Loewi’s reasoning pattern than the one provided by Lawson is developed in Hoffmann (2014a); see also Hoffmann (2014b). Additionally, Hoffmann (2014c) provides a template for the testing of hypotheses in biomedical research in general. It includes also things such as the justification of appropriate sample sizes in experiments.

  11. This argument is presented in more detail in an argument map that is part of the supplementary material to this article (Online Resource 2).

References

  • Andriessen, J.E.B., M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers (eds.). 2003a. Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J.E.B., G. Erkens, C.V.D. Laak, N. Peters, and P. Coirier. 2003b. Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J.E.B. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 79–115. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnauld, A., and P. Nicole. 1996 <1683>. Logic, or, the art of thinking: Containing, besides common rules, several new observations appropriate for forming judgment, 5th ed., rev. and newly augmented. Trans. J. V. Buroker. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Baker, M. 2003. Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 47–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Tal, D. 2007. Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist 50: 1430–1453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B.R., K.D. Glazewski, and J.C. Richardson. 2008. A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development 56(4): 401–422. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J.A. 2004. Argument and its uses. Informal Logic 24(2). Retrieved from http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2140.

  • Buchanan, A. 2002. Social moral epistemology. Social Philosophy & Policy 19(2): 126–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum, S. 2003. The roots of computer-supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham-Shum, and C.S. Carr, 3–24. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buratti, S., and C.M. Allwood. 2015. Regulating metacognitive processes—support for a meta-metacognitive ability. In Metacognition. Fundaments, applications, and trends: a profile of the current state-of-the-art, ed. A. Peña-Ayala, 17–38. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buroker, J.V. 1996. Introduction (Trans. J.V. Buroker). In Logic, or, the art of thinking, ed. A. Arnauld, and P. Nicole, ix–xxvi. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campitelli, G., and M. Labollita. 2010. Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision Making 5(3): 182–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope. 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J. 2006. Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. 2002. Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL?, ed. P.A. Kirschner, 61–91. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., and F. Hong. 2008. The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 3(1): 5–23. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., and P. Tchounikine. 2007. Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning 23(1): 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diogenes-Laertius. 1925. Lives of eminent philosophers. Ed. and trans. by R.D. Hicks. London, New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam’s sons.

  • Donohue, W.A., R.G. Rogan, and S. Kaufman (eds.). 2011. Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., and J. Metcalfe. 2009. Metacognition. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C.P., M.J. Hogan, and I. Stewart. 2015. The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity 16: 11–26. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist 49(8): 709–724. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.49.8.709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euclid. 1956. The thirteen books of the elements. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

  • Facione, P.A. 1990. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED315423&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED315423.

  • Flavell, J.H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34(10): 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogelin, R. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(4): 25–42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddu, G.C. 2009. Refining Hitchcock’s definition of ‘Argument’. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 1–12. Retrieved from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/55/.

  • Goldman, A.I. 1994. Argumentation and social epistemology. The Journal of Philosophy 91(1): 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A.I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A.I. 2003. An epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 23: 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. 2003. Defending science–within reason. Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. 1986. Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, M. 2011. Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research & Development 30(3): 371–385. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.502559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, M. 2012. Assessing the efficacy of argument diagramming to teach critical thinking skills in introduction to philosophy. Inquiry 27(2): 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. 2007. Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, D. 2007. Informal logic and the concept of argument. In Philosophy of logic, ed. D. Jaquette, 101–129. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2004. How to get it. Diagrammatic reasoning as a tool of knowledge development and its pragmatic dimension. Foundations of Science 9(3): 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2005a. Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management 16(4): 304–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2005b. Signs as means for discoveries. Peirce and his concepts of ‘Diagrammatic Reasoning’, ‘Theorematic Deduction’, ‘Hypostatic Abstraction’, and ‘Theoric Transformation’. In Activity and sign—grounding mathematics education, ed. M.H.G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, and F. Seeger, 45–56. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2008. Reflective argumentation. Georgia Tech’s School of Public Policy Working Paper Series, 44. http://www.spp.gatech.edu/publications/working-papers/reflective-argumentation.

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2011a. Analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of logical argument mapping. In Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication, W.A. Donohue, R.G. Rogan & S. Kaufman, pp. 136–164. New York, NY: Peter Lang (pre-print available at http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/37/).

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2011b. Cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning. Semiotica 186(1/4): 189–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2011c. “Theoric Transformations” and a new classification of abductive inferences. Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society 46(4): 570–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2014a. Argument map: Developing scientific hypotheses and experimental designs in form of an argumentation. Loewi’s crucial experiment on chemical neurotransmission. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/49.

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2014b. Argument map: Loewi’s argument that neuro-transmission works with chemical signals instead of electrical (short version). Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/50.

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2014c. Hypothesis generation and testing: A template for biomedical research (argument map). Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/48.

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2015. Changing philosophy through technology: Complexity and computer-supported collaborative argument mapping. Philosophy & Technology 28(2): 167–188. doi:10.1007/s13347-013-0143-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G., and J. Borenstein. 2014. Understanding ill-structured engineering ethics problems through a collaborative learning and argument visualization approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 20(1): 261–276. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9430-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M.H.G., and M. Plöger. 2000. Mathematik als Prozess der Verallgemeinerung von Zeichen: Eine exemplarische Unterrichtseinheit zur Entdeckung der Inkommensurabilität. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 22(1): 81–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhelder, B.R., and J. Piaget. 1958. The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence; an essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., and P. Dillenbourg. 2003. Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J.E.B. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 205–226. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., and Y.H. Cho. 2011. Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education 100(4): 680–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., and B. Kim. 2010. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development 58(4): 439–457. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., D. Shen, R.M. Marra, Y.H. Cho, J.L. Lo, and V.K. Lohani. 2009. Engaging and supporting problem solving in engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education 98(3): 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D.M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8(4): 407–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow, 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and S. Frederick. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, 49–81. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kanselaar, G., G. Erkens, J. Andriessen, M. Prangsma, A. Veerman, and J. Jaspers. 2003. Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr, 51–70. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., and W.-M. Roth. 2014. Argumentation as/in/for dialogical relation: A case study from elementary school science. Pedagogies: An International Journal 9(4): 300–321. doi:10.1080/1554480X.2014.955498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 1994. Developing reflective judgment. Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults, 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 2004. Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist 39(1): 5–18. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P.A., S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr (eds.). 2003. Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener, K.S. 1983. Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. A 3-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development 26(4): 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. 2014. This changes everything. Capitalism vs. the climate. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., F. Fischer, and F.W. Hesse. 2006. Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review 18(2): 159–185. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. 1992. Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review 62(2): 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. 1993. Science as argument—implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education 77(3): 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 2004. Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate—the essential guide for progressives. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A.E. 1995. Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A.E. 2006. Developing scientific reasoning patterns in college biology. In Handbook of college science teaching, ed. J.J. Mintzes, and W.H. Leonard, 109–118. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitão, S. 2000. The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development 43(6): 332–360. doi:10.1159/000022695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R.J., B. Gray, and M. Elliott (eds.). 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Concepts and cases. Washington - Covelo - London: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipstadt, D.E. 1993. Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on truth and memory. New York; Toronto: Free Press; Maxwell Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.

  • Lumer, C. 2005a. The epistemological theory of argument—How and Why? Informal Logic 25(3): 213–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumer, C. 2005b. Introduction: The epistemological theory of argumentation—a map. Informal Logic 25(3): 189–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, G., and T.O. Nelson. 2014. Metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology monitoring and control processes (pp. 1 online resource (223 pages)). Retrieved from Ebook Library http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1688987.

  • Metcalfe, J., and A.P. Shimamura. 1994. Metacognition. Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mochales-Palau, R., and M.-F. Moens. 2009. Automatic argumentation detection and its role in law and the Semantic Web. In Law, ontologies and the semantic web: Channelling the legal information flood, ed. J. Breuker, 115–129. Amsterdam; Washington, DC: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munneke, L., J. Andriessen, G. Kanselaar, and P.A. Kirschner. 2007. Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior 23(3): 1072–1088. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T.O. 1992. Metacognition. Core readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 2005. Sustainability. A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N., and E.M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming, 1st ed. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. 2010. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328(5977): 463–466. doi:10.1126/science.1183944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palus, C.J., and D.M. Horth. 2001. Putting something in the middle: An approach to dialogue. Reflections 3(2): 28–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce. (CP). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Volumes I–VI, ed. by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, 1931–1935, Volumes VII-VIII, ed. by Arthur W. Burks, 1958; quotations according to volume and paragraph). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

  • Peirce. (EP). The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 1 (1867–1893), Vol. 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington and Indianapolis 1992 +1998: Indiana University Press.

  • Peirce. (NEM). The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce (Vol. I–IV). The Hague-Paris/Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1976: Mouton/Humanities Press.

  • Peña-Ayala, A. 2015. Metacognition. Fundaments, applications, and trends: A profile of the current state-of-the-art. Cham; New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969 <1958>. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Piaget, J. 1970. Genetic epistemology. Trans. E. Duckworth. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Piaget, J. 1977. Recherches sur l’abstraction réfléchissante. Paris: Presses univ. de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, R.C. 2001. Generalizing the notion of argument Argument, Inference and Dialectic. Collected Papers on Informal Logic (pp. 10–20). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer.

  • Pinto, R.C. 2010. The uses of argument in communicative contexts. Argumentation 24(2): 227–252. doi:10.1007/s10503-009-9174-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan, I., F. Zablith, and C. Reed. 2007. Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 897–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchey, T. 2011. Wicked problems—social messes decision support modelling with morphological analysis. Berlin; London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., P. Enderle, J. Grooms, and S. Witte. 2013. Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education 97(5): 643–670. doi:10.1002/sce.21069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., J. Grooms, and J.P. Walker. 2011. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education 95(2): 217–257. doi:10.1002/sce.20421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., and J.P. Walker. 2012. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 34(10): 1443–1485. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.667581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D.A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection. Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B.B., and R. De Groot. 2007. Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2(2–3): 297–313. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9020-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B.B., Y. Neuman, J. Gil, and M. Ilya. 2003. Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(2): 219–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selvin, A.M. 2003. Fostering collective intelligence: Helping groups use visualized argumentation. In Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr, 137–163. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sextus, E. (1912). Sexti Empirici Opera. Recensuit Hermannus Mutschmann. Vol. I, Pyrroneion Ypotyposeon. libros tres continens. Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri.

  • Sloman, S.A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1): 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K.E. 2011. Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K.E., and R. F. West. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23(5):645–665; 701–726. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435.

  • Stanovich, K.E., R.F. West, and M.E. Toplak. 2011. The assessment of rational thought. In Rationality and the reflective mind, ed. K.E. Stanovich, 191–246. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. H. (2006). The economics of climate change. The stern review: Summary of conclusions. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf.

  • Stjernfelt, F. 2007. Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D.D. 2003. Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 27–46. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D.D., and C.D. Hundhausen. 2003. An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(2): 183–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toplak, M.E., R.F. West, and K.E. Stanovich. 2011. The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition 39(7): 1275–1289. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 2003 <1958>. The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • U.S. Department of Education, N. C. f. E. S. 2000. The NPEC sourcebook on assessment, Volume 1: Definitions and assessment methods for critical thinking, problem solving, and writing, NCES 2000. Prepared by T. Dary Erwin for the Council of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Student Outcomes Pilot Working Group: Cognitive and Intellectual Development. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000195.pdf.

  • van Bruggen, J.M., H.P.A. Boshuizen, and P.A. Kirschner. 2003. A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham-Shum, and C.S. Carr, 25–47. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory, 1st ed. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M.J., B.A.M. Van Hout-Wolters, and P. Afflerbach. 2006. Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning 1(1): 3–14. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. 1981. The genesis of higher mental functions. In The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, ed. J.V. Wertsch. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. 1989. Informal logic. A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, J.W. 1979. Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education (Grant P116S100006). I am thankful for important feedback that David Hitchcock, Bryan Norton, Justin Biddle, J. Britt Holbrook, and two anonymous reviewers provided to earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 685 Cherry Street, N.W., DM Smith Building, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0345, USA

    Michael H. G. Hoffmann

Authors
  1. Michael H. G. Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael H. G. Hoffmann.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoffmann, M.H.G. Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing. Argumentation 30, 365–397 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9388-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9388-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation