The Argumentum experience

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

How can argumentation skills be improved by engaging students in argumentative practices where they are helped to assume a healthy critical attitude, and provide reasons for their positions? What are the synergies of learning to argue and arguing to learn (see chapter “Argumentation and Learning,” B. Schwarz)? This paper originates from these questions, and relies on the experience of teaching argumentation at university level, in the framework of the Swiss Virtual Campus project Argumentum (http://www.argumentum.ch). After presenting the aim and structure of Argumentum, this study focuses on a specific experience of argument production and analysis, occurred in the pedagogical scenario of argumentation classes at master level, at the University of Lugano. Students were asked to assume a specific position within a debate inspired by a famous historical controversy. Two different tools for constructing and analyzing arguments (see chapter “Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource,” E. Rigotti and S. Greco Morasso) were introduced within this didactical experience, allowing a progressively more comprehensive approach to argumentative interventions, including the production of an argumentative intervention, and the analysis and evaluation of arguments. The online course Argumentum provided the technical platform for this exercise of argumentation. Finally, the paper elaborates on the lessons learned by this experience.

Keywords

Learning argumentation Argumentation Pedagogical Design Analysis of argumentative texts Argument schemes 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Joëlle Stoudmann for the revision of English in this chapter.

References

  1. Andriessen, J., Drachman, R., de Groot, R., Schwarz, B., Kent, A., Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A., Säljö, R. (2004). DUNES – Dialogic and ArgUmentative Negotiation Educational Software Pedagogical Realization – the Case. In A. Méndez-Vilas, J.A. Mesa Gonzàlez, I. Sólo de Zaldívar Maldonado (eds.), Information Society and Education, Special Issue of Journal of Digital Contents (1, 46–50).Google Scholar
  2. Bourdin, S., Licot, M.-N., Conti, A., Duquenne, C. (2001). La question de l’autre en débats: jouer la Controverse de Valladolid en classe. Le cartable de Clio. Revue romande et tessinoise sur les didactiques de l’histoire, 1, 155–161.Google Scholar
  3. Cancelli, F. (ed) (1992). La retorica a Gaio Erennio. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
  4. Cantoni, L., Tardini, S. (2006). Internet. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cantoni, L., Botturi, L., Succi, C. (2007). NewMinE Lab: 2007. eLearning: capire, progettare, comunicare. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  6. Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  7. Cortés, H. (1519). Primera relación o Carta de Veracruz. http://www.motecuhzoma.de/start-es.html.
  8. Cortés, H. (1520). Segunda relación. http://www.motecuhzoma.de/start-es.html.
  9. Greco Morasso, S. (2006). Comments on “Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Confrontations”. Argumentation, 20(4), 393–398.Google Scholar
  10. Light, P., A.N. Perret-Clermont (1989). Social Context Effects in Learning and Testing. In: A. Gellatly, D. Rogers and J.A. Sloboda, (eds.), Cognition and Social Worlds, 99–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Mortara Garavelli, B. (1997). Manuale di retorica (Nuova edizione ampliata). Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  12. Muller-Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A. N., de Pietro, J. F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 315–357.Google Scholar
  13. Perret-Clermont, A.N., F. Carugati, J. Oates (2004). A socio-cognitive perspective on learning and cognitive development. In: J. Oates and A. Grayson (eds.), Cognitive and language development in children, ed. 305–332. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Rigotti, E. (2006). Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation, 20(4), 519–540.Google Scholar
  15. Rigotti, E. (2007). Can Classical Topics be Revived Within the Contemporary Theory of Argumentation? In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch. Willards, B. Garssen (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th ISSA Conference in Argumentation (pp. 1155–1163). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  16. Rigotti, E., Greco S. (2006). Topics: The Argument Generator. In E. Rigotti et al. (ed.), Argumentation for Financial Communication, Argumentum eLearning Module. http://www.argumentum.ch.
  17. Rigotti, E., Rocci, A., Greco S. (2006a). The Semantics of Reasonableness. In P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Rigotti, E. et al. (2006b). Argomentazione nelle istituzioni, Argumentum eLearning Module. http://www.argumentum.ch.
  19. Rocci, A. (2006). Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4), 409–442.Google Scholar
  20. Schiappa, E. (2002). Evaluating Argumentative Discourse from a Rhetorical Perspective. Defining “Person” and “Human Life” in Constitutional Disputes over Abortion. In F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: the Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp.65–80). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Tardini, S. (2007). Argumentum: An e-Course for Learning Argumentation by Arguing. Proceedings of the 6th ISSA Conference in Argumentation, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  22. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Account. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of linguistics and semioticsUniversity of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations