Argumentative Design
This empirical chapter discusses the educational design of argumentative activities. Productive argumentative activity may be encouraged, for example, by elicitation procedures, argumentative scripts, by confronting subjects with hypothesis testing, and b
- PDF / 463,068 Bytes
- 30 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 27 Downloads / 184 Views
A central responsibility of higher education would be to initiate students into conflict (MacIntyre, 1990, p. 231)
Abstract This empirical chapter discusses the educational design of argumentative activities. Productive argumentative activity may be encouraged, for example, by elicitation procedures, argumentative scripts, by confronting subjects with hypothesis testing, and by pairing peers that have differences of opinion. What are the main results that research has delivered in such cases? A second section of the chapter is devoted to the designed use of collaborative technology for fostering and representing argumentation. Experiments using scenarios which feature a blend of technology and human interaction are discussed. Keywords Collaborative learning, Argumentation, Computer support, Pedagogical design
1
Introduction
In contrast to argumentation in informal settings (conversations during family dinners, disputes between siblings or friends), argumentation in educational contexts about “scientific knowledge” rarely occurs spontaneously, and is difficult to sustain. It is then imperious to design activities in which participants are expected to engage in argumentation. We call this effort “argumentative design.” Argumentative design concerns the design, by a teacher, researcher, or educational professional, of collaborative situations in educational contexts in which participants take on productive argumentation, or the exploration of a dialogical space, as Nonnon (1996) puts it. Defining the productivity of argumentation is a tough issue and depends on the aim of the discussants. In educational contexts in which understanding is a favored objective, productive argumentation may refer to at least two criteria (1)
J.E.B. Andriessen (*) and B.B. Schwarz Wise & Munro Learning Research, Azaleastraat 85, 2565CD, Den Haag, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] N. Muller Mirza and A.-N. Perret-Clermont (eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_6, © Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
145
146
J.E.B. Andriessen and B.B. Schwarz
several arguments are raised or challenged during the discussion, and (2) participants capitalize on the arguments that emerge during the discussion in subsequent activities, but it may refer at other criteria such as (3) discussants refer constructively to their peers, or (4) all participants actively participate in the discussion. The operationalization of these criteria is not a simple matter and decisions about how to measure a criterion for productivity in argumentation are often also specific; however, in spite of its fuzziness, we use the term “productive argumentation” onward having in mind that its meaning is adapted to specific educational goals. In educational situations, argumentative design is an arrangement that includes the presentation of a discussible issue, but that leaves the precise nature of the discussion to the participants. In other words, argumentative design cannot (and should
Data Loading...
