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.

Adolescents’ credibility justifications when evaluating online texts

“…After identifying the type of evidence, students can think of how the evidence was produced and whether this process is reliable or not (Chinn et al, 2014). Nussbaum's (2020) guiding questions also ask students to consider other claims and conclusions that would fit the evidence, and whether something important is missing. Finally, when evaluating controversial scientific arguments, an additional point to consider is values: Are reasons supporting one side more important than reasons supporting the other side?…”

“…We used qualitative content analysis (White & Marsh, 2006) to examine students' justifications for their credibility evaluations. We used both deductive procedures relying on theoretical views of sourcing (e.g., Bråten, Stadtler et al, 2018) and quality of evidence (e.g., Hoeken, 2001;Nussbaum, 2020), and inductive procedures to reflect the observed data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The analysis proceeded in two phases.…”

Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis

“…Through examining linguistic patterns of student conversations while discussing the relationship between evidence and explanations, the present study seeks to provide insight into how students evaluate and build consensus for the connections between lines of scientific evidence and alternative explanatory models through negotiation. Although some have argued that both adversarial (i.e., with the goal of trying to compete and win) and collaborative (i.e., with the goal of trying to collectively construct and problem solve) argumentation modes can result in learning, classrooms discussions focused on collaboration and negotiation toward consensus facilitate deeper scientific reasoning and knowledge construction most often (Mercier et al, 2017; Nussbaum, 2021).…”

“…The role of negotiation in argumentation is central to consensus building as students engage with and respond to each other's ideas (Berland & Lee, 2012; Jiménez‐Aleixandre & Brocos, 2017). Negotiation facilitates argumentation by allowing students to construct and share ideas, build consensus and integrate questions and alternative explanations, and learn how to revise claims based on their strengths and weaknesses (Nam & Chen, 2017; Nussbaum, 2021). Duschl and Osborne (2002) suggested that “Science as a way of knowing…involves the use of critical arguments and processes that are more akin to diplomatic negotiation than to conflict” (p. 54).…”

“…Duschl and Osborne (2002) suggested that “Science as a way of knowing…involves the use of critical arguments and processes that are more akin to diplomatic negotiation than to conflict” (p. 54). Negotiation then, is a subset of argumentation, where students present a position, agree or disagree with each other by offering explanations and counter arguments, and reach conclusions through civil discourse and conversation (Chen & Steenhoek, 2013; Nussbaum, 2021).…”