cooperative argumentation
DESCRIPTION
Apresentação de Felton sobre argumentação cooperativaTRANSCRIPT
:Cooperative Argumentation:
:How to use classroom discourseto foster critical thinking skills:
:Mark Felton, [email protected]:
What is critical thinking?
• Knowledge, skills and dispositions• Thinking about arguments: Examining
the reasons for assertions, decisions orjudgments
A simple argument
Claim + Warrant + Evidence
“I am in favor of capital punishmentbecause it reduces crime, as we haveseen in New York over the past twentyyears.”
What is critical thinking?
• Knowledge, skills and dispositions• Thinking about arguments: Examining
the reasons for assertions, decisions orjudgments
• Addressing alternative arguments
An elaborated argument
Claim + Warrant + Evidence+ Alternative claim + Rebuttal / Reservation
“I am in favor of capital punishment because itreduces crime, as we have seen in New York overthe past twenty years. Some of the crime reductionmay be due to an improved economy and more jobs,but most criminals don’t turn to murder because theydon’t have a job. They’re people who have adisregard for anyone but themselves ”
Definition: critical thinking
• Argumentative reasoning thatevaluates the support for a claim withina framework of opposing claims andevidence.
• The structure of argument
Confirmation Bias
• The tendency for individuals to seekout evidence or reasons that supporttheir beliefs, while overlooking, ignoringor undervaluing evidence thatcontradicts their beliefs (Wason, 1960)
Definition: critical thinking
• Argumentative reasoning that is self-correcting and actively avoidsconfirmation bias by evaluating thesupport for a claim within a frameworkof opposing claims and evidence.
• The goals and structure of argument
Simone: Papa, can I have a treat [candy or othersugary food]?
Me: You’ve already had your treat for the day.
Simone: But that was so small.
Me: Well…that was the treat you asked for.
Simone: Yes, but some days I get a big treat. So, I’mthinking that maybe I should have two small treats fortoday.
Me: Or maybe mama and I should stop giving you bigtreats?
Simone: [grumbles and changes the subject]
Sample dialogue
Where do the skills of argument comefrom?
• With the support of discourse, youngchildren can construct the basicstructure of an elaborated argument
• In time, they appropriate of the skills ofargument from social context ofdiscourse
What develops?
• Advances in content knowledge• Advances in discourse skill• Transfer to independent argument
construction
Advances in metacognitive awareness ofthe goals & structure of argumentation
What’s missing?
• Straw-man arguments• Simple rebuttals• Little or no use of reservations or
qualifications• Little or no change in position
Sample dialogue
• Physics problem• Instructions: Look at the
comic and discuss whetherthis could happen in reality.Justify all the claims thatyou make.
• Wrote individual essays• Discussed in small groups• Wrote a final group opinion
Sample dialogue
• Read responses by S3 and S4• Discuss: What good things come out
of this dialogue? What are the positiveoutcomes for science learning or forargumentative reasoning?
• Discuss: What negative outcomes orproblems do you see emerging fromthis dialogue?
What’s still missing?
• Students have learned to produce thestructure of a two-sided argument
• But they still demonstrate confirmationbias
• Why? What’s going on?
Dispute vs. Deliberation
• Similarities: Structure of argument• Both types of discourse involve
contrasting alternatives, using claims,evidence, counterarguments andrebuttals
Dispute vs. Deliberation
• Differences: Goals of argument• Goal of dispute: Win• Goals of deliberation: Choose a course
of action or position, rather than defendone.
Dispute vs. Deliberation
• Responding to alternatives• Dispute: Maintain position—Rebut or
ignore alternative claims & evidence• Deliberation: Maintain position, alter
position, abandonposition—Acknowledge alternativeclaims & evidence
Problems with traditional classroomdiscourse
• Teacher is at the center and correct answers areemphasized
• When alternatives are permitted, they are notcontrasted
• When alternatives are contrasted, students areallowed to argue at cross purposes
• When debates are used, they are the culminatingactivity, leaving no room for revising positions
• When students are allowed to revise positions, theyaren’t given the opportunity to reflect on the process.
Scaffolding deliberation
• Instruction on the structure of arguments• Practice in argumentation• Deliberative process of argumentation• Deliberative goals of argumentation
Socratic seminarfor deliberation
• Reading• Problem posed—circle within a circle• Moderated discussion—inner circle• Review of arguments—outer circle• Coalescing arguments—moderated or in
small groups• Decisions or next steps• Reflection on process
Final words
• Valuing empathy and responsiveness• Distancing students from positions• Accepting and valuing an array of
outcomes
Recommended references
Gilbert, M. (1997). Coalescent Argument.Goldman, A.I. (2001). Argumentation and social
epistemology. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 27-49.Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic
Theory of Argument.
Makau, J.M. and Marty, D.L. (2001). CooperativeArgumentation: A Model for Deliberative Community.