Critical integrative argumentation: Toward complexity in students’ thinking

Abstract

Collaborative argumentation in education, where students work together to construct and critique arguments, is an important social practice in many disciplines and can also develop conceptual understanding. This article addresses the evolution of my research agenda on collaborative argumentation from just scaffolding the generation of counterarguments and rebuttals in students’ discourse toward what I call critical, integrative argumentation (CIA). The CIA framework involves teaching students to ask critical questions to assess the strength and cogency of arguments. It also involves generating, in addition to conventional refutations, integrative refutations that (a) weigh costs and benefits (or for scientific arguments, the evidence for and plausibility of alternative models), or (b) involve design arguments (or for scientific arguments, the integration of multiple factors and constraints). Issues related to terminology, instruction, student learning progressions, teachers’ professional learning, public discourse, and the need to teach complex, critical thinking to students are discussed.

Notes

1 According to other observational data in the dissertation study, it was not the case that extraverts always used an adversarial argumentation style; rather the findings describe general tendencies to act in certain ways in certain situations.

2 Schwarz and Baker (2017) argue that most notions of critical thinking are too monological (not dialogical) and focused on individuals. Conceptualizing argumentation as a set of social practices/genres which do not exclude individual reasoning is more authentic.

3 I do not mean to suggest that scientific arguments are entirely value-free; scientific argument schemes reflect certain epistemic values, and values are also reflected in the choice and framing of topics (Kienhues et al., 2020). Scientific arguments however, have descriptive conclusions and practical arguments prescriptive ones.

4 This illustrates the foundational nature of the Toulmin model and how argument schemes and argument-counterargument integration strategies build on, but go beyond, that framework.

5 I consider socioscientific and design arguments to fall into the practical domain, albeit they have a heavy scientific component. The science is, however, in service of the goals and values of the arguer and their audience.

6 I am referring here to the odds version of the rule where only two possible models are assumed; if and when additional models are considered, the calculations should be revised.

7 While some might find making inferences about the evolutionary origins of our cognitive capabilities too far a stretch, what is more germane to the present analysis is the description of these capabilities.