Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines

Abstract

Meaningful learning requires deep engagement with ideas. Deep engagement is supported by the critical thinking skill of argumentation. Learning to argue represents an important way of thinking that facilitates conceptual change and is essential for problem solving. In order to appropriately apply argumentation practices to learning, we first discuss reasons for using argumentation in learning environments or instruction. Next, we describe the skills of argumentation along with difficulties that learners experience when trying to argue. Following a brief description of the kinds of argumentation to persuade an audience of the validity of your position or solution (rhetorical) or to attempt to resolve differences in opinions or solutions (dialectical), we describe methods and guidelines for eliciting arguments from students. We conclude with processes for assessing the quality of student-generated arguments.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlin, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S. Y., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1–46.

  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

  3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.

  4. Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  5. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter.

  6. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41–56.

  7. Buckingham Shum, S. J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267–300.

  8. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315–368.

  9. Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–98.

  10. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

  11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

  12. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

  13. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135–153.

  14. Hong, N. S., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.

  15. Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. (2002). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

  16. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–95.

  17. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

  18. Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/Jossey-Bass.

  19. Jonassen, D. H. (2007). What makes scientific problems difficult? In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Learning to solve complex, scientific problems (pp. 3–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  20. Jonassen, D. H. (in press). Assembling and analyzing the building blocks of problem-based learning. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of training and improving workplace performance. San Francisco, CA: Wiley/Pfeiffer.

  21. Jonassen, D. H., Cho, Y. H., Kwon, K., Henry, H., Easter, M., Shen, D., et al. (2009). Evaluating vs. constructing arguments. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 235–254.

  22. Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81.

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

  24. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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

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

  27. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

  28. Leitão, S. (2001, September). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3), Article 12. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/907/1982.

  29. Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20(3), 269–306.

  30. 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), 139–178.

  31. Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1072–1088.

  32. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.

  33. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1&2), 113–137.

  34. Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169.

  35. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.

  36. Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395.

  37. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110.

  38. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. In P. Wilkinson & J. Weaver (Eds.), Nortre Dame. London: University of Notre Dame Press.

  39. Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  40. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  41. Popper, K. (1999). All life is problem solving. London: Routledge.

  42. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 347–364.

  43. Reznitskya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlin, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argumentation. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 155–175.

  44. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 6–33.

  45. Siegal, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159–176.

  46. Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen & P. Corrier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  47. Suthers, D. (1998) Representations for scaffolding collaborative inquiry on ill-structured problems. Paper presented at the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.

  48. 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.

  49. Suthers, D., & Jones, D. (1997, August). An architecture for intelligent collaborative educational systems. Paper Presented at the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-Ed 97), Kobe, Japan.

  50. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

  51. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  52. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  53. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Dordrecht, NL: Foris Publications.

  54. vonAufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation related to their scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 45, 101–131.

  55. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350.

  56. Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Preface. In F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  57. Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  58. Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

  59. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  60. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311.

  61. Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

  62. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to David H. Jonassen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonassen, D.H., Kim, B. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 439–457 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Problem solving
  • Computer-supported collaborative argumentation