CHAPTER 3. Pedagogical Tools

3.1.- Argumentation

Argumentation could be defined as the ‘logical or quasi-logical sequence of ideas that is supported by evidence’ (Andrews, 2009: 16).

Argumentation is a dialogical activity based on two crucial principles, namely common beliefs and defeasibility (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Arguments are based on premises, such as values, presumed causal relations, and commonly accepted definitions. Arguments are inherently defeasible, i.e., they are subject to default if one of the premises is challenged or refuted (Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011: 444). Thus, argumentation is essentially linked to the dialogical and dialectical practice of addressing a problematic issue, giving reasons to support and attack a point of view (Plantin, 2005).

The dialogic evaluation of a point of view or a statement leads interlocutors to reconstruct the implicit dimension of the discourse (Anscombre & Ducrot, 1983), detecting possible weaknesses and defending them by resorting to various types of support (Walton, 2006). Such analytical and dialectical activity can thus reveal background beliefs and correct them or develop the interlocutors’ reasoning skills or their ability to use available evidence or knowledge (Baker, 2009). Argumentation can be considered one of the key instruments for the social construction of knowledge (Walton, 2006).

Argumentation has a fundamental role in teaching and learning (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Sandoval & Millwood, 2005). Teaching, as argumentative dialogue, aims to modify and develop students’ understanding, revealing its limits and constructing new approaches (Chi & Roscoe, 2002; Simons, Morreale, & Gronbeck, 2011), using arguments.

The beliefs and prior knowledge on which students rely to construct their arguments can become the subject of future argumentative exchanges, aimed at providing reasons that show their shortcomings and are supported by the scientific method. For this reason, argumentation is critical both for improving students’ critical thinking skills and for improving classroom interactions so that students’ prior knowledge can be made more explicit, addressed, and developed into more elaborate theories (Carey, 2000; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004).

1. Argumentation theory provides resources for improving argumentation in classroom interactions such as:

• Argumentative dialogical models (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Walton & Krabbe, 1995), focused on the activity of supporting assertions by means of reasons,
• Logical argumentative structures (Hastings, 1963; Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008), focused on the construction of arguments.

The nature of classroom conversations has been explored considering argumentative practices such as providing evidence to support a point of view or refuting and questioning other positions (Driver et al., 2000; Schwarz & De Groot, 2007). Under this view, dialogical argumentative activities can be seen as instruments to promote critical reasoning (Erduran et al., 2004; Koballa, 1992; Osborne, 2010; Pera & Shea, 1991).

There are four tasks that argumentation (or informal logic) performs: identification, analysis, evaluation and invention.

1. Identification task, the premises and conclusion of an argument as found in a text or discourse are pointed out. In addition, you determine whether a given argument found in a text conforms to an argument form (or argumentation scheme).
2. An analysis task, looking for implicit premises or conclusions in an argument that need to be made explicit to adequately evaluate the argument. Arguments tend to leave implicit some premises or, in some cases, the conclusion.
3. Evaluation task, it is determined whether an argument is weak or strong by the general criteria applied to it.
4. The invention task, new arguments are constructed that can be used to prove a specific conclusion.

On the part of the students, it requires a combination of knowledge and competencies in the discipline itself, as well as transversal skills, such as critical thinking, communication, creativity, documentation, teamwork, etc.

3.1.1.- Frequent Argumentation Schemes

Argumentation schemes are instruments for analyzing arguments that occur in ordinary and specialized discourse. Through the analysis of argumentation schemes, it is possible to identify argumentative profiles in candidates to an election considering their preferences on the types of arguments used (Macagno, Walton, & Reed, 2017).

3.1.2.- Argumentative support models

The three most used models of argumentation are the Classical, the Toulmin and the Rogerian.

A. The classical argumentation model

The Greek philosopher Aristotle developed what is known as the Aristotelian or classical argumentative method. In it, one’s goal is to persuade one’s audience or readers to adopt one’s point of view. The classical argumentative scheme is composed of five components (Kurtz, 2021):

• Preamble: introduction.
• Narratio: context or background of the topic.
• Proposito and Partitio: assertion/posture and the argument.
• Confirmatio and/or Refutatio: positive and negative evidence of support.
• Peroratio: conclusion and call to action.

In modern writing, this structure has developed as follows:

1. Presentation of the At the end of the introduction, the student presents his thesis or main point before further analysis.
2. Explanation of the problem. The student presents his/her case explaining the problem in detail and why something should be done or if a way of thinking does not
3. The student addresses the opposition, pointing out and refuting their arguments.
4. The student provides their evidence to support their case.
5. Conclusions. The student presents his or her conclusion, which should recall the main point or thesis and summarize the key points of his or her argument. If a student is advocating for some kind of change, this is a good place to give your audience a call to action, on what they could do to bring about

B. Toulmin’s argumentation model

Toulmin’s method provides an argument mapping and helps visualize the process. This map labels the parts of an argument. Using these labels, one can better develop one’s argumentation map. The labels of Toulmin’s method are as follows:

1. Assertion: The basic point of view presented by an arguer. Data: Evidence to support the claim.
2. Warrant: The justification for connecting data to a particular claim. The warrant also clarifies the assumptions underlying the argument.
3. Support: additional information is required if the warranty is not clearly supported.
4. Rebuttal: Conditions or points of view that point out flaws in the claim or alternative positions.
5. Qualifiers: Terminology that limits a point of view. Examples include the application of the terms «sometimes, seems, occasionally, none, always, never, etc.» to any part of an argument.

Cohesion, as well as clear connections between the different labels, is what distinguishes a «good» argument (Kurtz, 2021).

Rogerian Argumentation Model

Most argumentation schemes aim to support a statement or a set of statements. However, there are times when one can see valid points in the opponent’s point of view. Carl Rogers, the clinical therapist who introduced the disciplines of psychology and education to the person-centered approach, proposed a method of argumentation that allows an arguer to hold firmly to his or her belief while recognizing that the opposing side has merit. When applied to argumentation, the Rogerian method examines counterarguments as improvements or concessions, rather than viewing them as complete opposites. Rogers’ nonconfrontational method uses common feelings by making them the vehicle for developing shared understanding (Kurtz, 2021).

According to Young, et al (1970), the Rogerian method of argumentation can be considered as aiming at the following:

1. To convey to the reader/audience that they are understood.
2. Delineate the area within which they believe the reader/audience’s position is valid.
3. Inducing themselves to believe that they and the writer/presenter share certain moral qualities.

3.2            Evidence

To validate an assertion and turn it into a considerable argument, it is required to be supported by proof or evidence.

Evidence is information from reliable sources that is used to support a claim. It can include data, such as observations and measurements, statistics, expert opinions and examples. It can be categorized into three different types of evidence, each with a diverse role within the argumentation process. These are fact, trial and testimony.

1. Fact is the most recognized and valuable evidence (e.g., facts, statistics or indisputable truths). Being linked to numbers and science, they are widely accepted. It is necessary to cite them in combination with an explanation of their significance to the argument and to give them context.
2. Testimony may be first-hand (e.g., eyewitness account) or second-hand (e.g., review by a recognized expert in the field). Since it involves an interpretation of the situation, it may lack objectivity.
3. Judgments are assumptions made by the arguer about the subject after careful consideration of the facts. Although it is the most misleading type of evidence, it also offers an original quality to the argumentation.

In the educational setting, the teacher should act as an «evidence inquirer,» that is, he or she should ask students to provide evidence for their arguments.

Brookfield and Preskill (2005)

3.2.1. Sources of information

A source is any piece of information that one uses as evidence to construct one’s argument. In academia, students often use evidence from books, journal articles, conference proceedings, published theses, websites-including podcasts and videos, newspapers, personal experiences, etc., as sources for their argumentation. Sources can vary in their level of authority, accuracy, timeliness and bias. This is why one should be aware of these factors before selecting sources. By selecting appropriate sources, the author/presenter will demonstrate that he/she has conducted his/her literature review and will document his/her argument, giving it validity and credibility. Peer-reviewed sources, such as journal articles, tend to be the most credible sources because of the evaluation they have undergone for publication.

Students must learn to evaluate sources of information in relation to their quality, authority and suitability for their argumentation.

This implies the implementation of critical thinking.

Students should be offered libraries and electronic databases where they can find quality sources.

SOURCE	DESCRIPTION
STATISTA statista.com	Online statistics portal that makes available relevant data from market and opinion studies, as well as economic indicators and official statistics.
EUROSTAT https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat	Includes data from the National Statistical Institutes of the Member States and EFTA.
ECB – EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/html/index.en.html	Reports and statistics are available.
WORLD BANK https://www.worldbank.org/en/home	Open access data

Once the main sources of information have been found, it is necessary to use them in a way that supports and integrates them into the argumentation and builds the line of reasoning. It is necessary to synthesize different sources into a coherent statement. Finally, sources must be properly cited and referenced.

REFERENCES

Andrews, R. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: improving practice through theory and research, New York: Routledge,

Anscombre, JC and Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la Langue. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.

Panadero, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge, in N. Muller-Mirza & AN Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and Education (pp. 127-144). New York: Springer.

Boghossian, P. (2012). Socratic pedagogy: Perplexity, humiliation, shame, and broken eggs.

Philosophy and theory of education, 44:7, 710-720.

Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 21(1), 13-19.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00046-5.

Chi, MTH and Roscoe, RD (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. Reconsidering conceptual change. Problems of Theory and Practice, 3-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47637-1_1.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Setting the Standards for Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.3.CO;2-1.

Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004). Harnessing Argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern to study scientific discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012.

Hastings, A. (1963). A reformulation of modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University (doctoral dissertation).

Kurtz, J., (2021) Three Types of Argument, in Boylan, K., Browning, E., Kurtz, J., Thornton, T.,Smibert, A. and Bignell, J., Let’s Keep Writing, A College Composition II, textbook, Virginia Western Community College English Department.

Brookfield, SD and Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: tools and techniques for democratic classrooms, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Delic, H. & Becirovic, S. (2016). The Socratic method as an approach to teaching, in European Researcher, vol. 111, es. 10, pp. 511-517, 2016, DOI: 10.13187/er.2016.111.511.

Douglas RO (2014). The fact of ignorance: revisiting the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking. American journal of pharmacy education, Am J Pharm Educ. 2014; 78(7).

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalization of society, Boston MA: Beacon Press.

Knezic D., Wubbels T., Elbers E., Hajer M. (2010). Socratic dialogue and teacher education.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1104-1111.

Koballa, TR (1992). Persuasion and Attitude Change in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Education, 29(1), 63-80.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290107http://www3interscience.wiley.com/cgi- bin/fulltext?ID=112752996&PLACEBO=IE.pdf&mode=pdf.

Lam F. (2011). The Socratic method is an approach to learning and has its benefits. Dietrich School of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Macagno, F. and Walton, D. (2015). Classifying natural argument patterns. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 48(1):26-53, 2015.

Macagno, F., Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2017). Argumentation Schemes. History, classifications, and computational applications, IFCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, vol. 4 No. 8 2017.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing for learning in science: the role of collaborative and critical discourse.

Science, 328 (5977), 463-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Improving the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 41(10), 994-1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035.

Pera, M. and Shea, W. (1991). Persuading science: the art of scientific rhetoric. Canton, Mass: History of Science Publications.

Plantín, C. (2005). La argumentación. History, theories, perspectives. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Sampson, V. and Clark, DB (2008). Assessing how students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276.

Sandoval, WA and Millwood, KA (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2.

Schiller N. (2008). Finding a Socratic method for information literacy instruction, University and Undergraduate Libraries, 15:1-2, 39-56.

Schwarz, BB and De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer: assisted collaborative learning, 2(2-3), 297-313.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9020-6 .

Simons, H., Morreale, J. and Gronbeck, B. (2011). Persuasion in society. New York: Routledge. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3t55RAZOPVMC.

van Eemeren, FH and Grootendorst, RF (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Young, RE, Becker, AL and Pike, KL (1970). Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. San Diego: Harcourt College Publishers.

Walton, D. (1970). Argumentation theory: a very brief introduction, in Argumentation of artificial intelligence, 10.1007/978-0-387-9898197-0_1.

Walton, D. (2006). Foundations of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. (1995). Engagement in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Walton, D., Reed, C. and Macagno, F. (2008). Outlines of Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.