Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Missouri, 221C Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    David H. Jonassen & Bosung Kim

Authors
  1. David H. Jonassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bosung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation