The Role of Argumentation in Critical Thinking

1
The Role of Argumentation in Critical Thinking

• Jason Symkowick
• November 28, 2006

2
What is Argumentation?

• An argument is constructed by an individual to
  support a claim.
• The dialogic process in which two or more persons
  engage in a debate of opposing views/claims is
  referred to as argumentation.

3
Argumentation Continued

• Argumentation is viewed as a social activity in
  which two or more people advance, defend, and
  compare arguments in support of opposing
  positions (Willard, 1983).
• Current research in argumentation defines
  argument as an activity that a person engages in
  with other individuals, rather than a product
  generated by an isolated person.

4
How argumentation works The theory underlying
argumentation
5
Argumentation Theory

• Three main components in Argumentation Theory
• 1. Data? Facts or opinions of evidence
• 2. Claim? Refers to the conclusion
• 3. Warrant? The leap that advances data to a
  claim
• ? Incidental and explanatory
• ? Register explicitly the
  legitimacy of the step involved
• from data to claim
• Additional (but not necessary) components of the
  theory
• Backing? Evidence or support for the assumption
  in the warrant
• Rebuttal/Reservation? Recognizes the conditions
  in which the claim
• 
  will not be true
• Qualifier? Probability or level of
  confidence in the claim

6
Arguments Can Be Pragmatic

• Arguments most often arise from disagreements
  between people.
• Arguments are likely to be initially incomplete
  and to grow as the speaker addresses the
  challenges presented by the conversational
  partner (Felton Kuhn, 2001).
• Henle (1962) explained that arguments may be
  logically sound even if they are incomplete by
  the standards of formal logic. (An argument may
  be valid even though the underlying premises
  remain implicit)
• Individuals may not elaborate arguments unless
  they feel the need to clarify themselves or to
  further convince others. (Provide enough so
  meaning can be constructed)

7
Argument Can Be Strategic

• In argumentation ( sometimes referred to as
  critical dialogue), each speaker elicits a set of
  commitments from the partner.
• A commitment is a presumptive or inconclusive
  premise that the partner is willing to concede.
• The goal of argumentation is to draw ones own
  conclusion from a partners commitments.

8
Argument as Strategy Continued

• According to Walton (1989), each participant has
  two goals in argumentation
• 1.) Secure commitments from the partner
  that can be used to support ones own
• claims.
• 2.) Undermine the partners position by
• identifying and challenging unwarranted
• premises.

9
A Developmental Model of Strategic Argumentation

10
Action
In Terms of Argumentation
Goal-directed Behavior
Activity
Leads to
Enhanced Skill
Activity
Activity
Leads to
Behavioral Adaptation
Enhanced Understanding

• An activity is composed of goal-directed
  behaviors known as actions.

• The development of an activity proceeds as we
  adapt our behavior to
• fit more advanced goals (Leontev, 1981).

• If we think of argumentation as an activity in
  the process of development,
• two forms of development can be identified

11
Action
In Terms of Argumentation
Goal-directed Behavior
Activity
Leads to
Enhanced Skill
Activity
Activity
Leads to
Behavioral Adaptation
Enhanced Understanding

• Enhanced skill in directing the course of the
  dialogue to meet the
• activitys objectives.

• Enhanced understanding of the goals of
  argumentation.

• These two forms of development reinforce each
  other, in that progress in
• strategic performance is enhanced by a
  better understanding of the
• goals of argumentation. At the same time,
  the use of these strategies in
• argumentation promotes a more refined
  understanding of the goals of
• the activity (Kuhn, 2001b).

12
Argumentation
Critical Thinking
Argumentation while Critically Thinking!
13
Critical Thinking

• A set of cognitive skills used to solve
  ill-structured problems or make decisions in
  complex situations.
• Involves identifying potential conflicts or
  problems, gathering and evaluating the pertinence
  and veracity of information, applying concepts
  and tools to manipulate problem components, and
  providing constructive feedback by evaluating the
  thought processes used.

14
Integration of Argumentation and Critical Thinking

• Conceptions and use of evidence
• a. The ability to distinguish between
  evidence quality and evidence type when
  judging a vexed issue.
• b. The ability to recognize that judgment
  about an issue should be suspended until
  evidence other than opinion is introduced to the
  issue.
• c. The ability to use counterpositive
  evidence to argue a position.
• d. The ability to describe the types of
  evidence needed to lend credibility to a
  particular claim.
• Conceptions and use of research
• a. The ability to recognize the importance
  of research as a
• decision-making tool.
• Other-side perspective
• a. The ability to recognize different
  perspectives of an argument.

15
Overall Importance
Critical thinking may be the most important tool
a student can possess, since so much of our
lives, as well as the educational system,
requires complex problem solving. Within the
context of collaborative learning, students are
forced to negotiate information in order to
generate results. This collaborative learning
process can easily facilitate argumentation, as
each student may present evidence based on
research to support his or her claim. In this
context, it is essential for the students to
think critically to evaluate all of the research
before reaching a decision. Educators (and
School Psychologists!) play important roles in
these environments as they can help the students
to develop and strengthen the critical
thinking skills needed to successfully argue a
claim. This instruction can greatly impact the
students and prepare them for the many challenges
and problems that life has to offer.