Argument Theories of Learning - Toulmin's Argument Schema

Argument theory has been significant in studies of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (e.g Andriessen et al, 2003: Ravenscroft & McAllister, 2006). The roots of argument theory lie in philosophy and conceptual analysis rather than in empirical educational research and it focuses on the structure and syntax of arguments. As I read and researched online learning tools I became aware of the need to also include the concept of argumentation and its related theories as these generally underpinned the tools specifically developed for an online discussion (de Laat & Wegerif 2007). The tools are generally created from the point of developing educational discussion whose affordance is supposed to be in encouraging critical and creative thinking. This also links to the theory of learning as discussed in the earlier blog on social learning theories as the discourse is central to the process here.

Toulmin’s Argument Schema

Toulmin’s explanation of informal argument has been very important in education, as it offers a good illustration of this approach to argument which treats it as if it was a kind of ‘grammar’ (Toulmin, 2003, updated edition). Criticizing over-formal and over-abstract accounts of good and bad arguments in terms of logical syllogisms rather than ordinary language, Toulmin introduced a description of what he called ‘informal logic’. His terminology such as ‘warrant’ suggests that his perspective was influenced by the kind of argumentation used by lawyers in courtrooms. According to him, argumentation can be broken down into the following moves:

• A claim states the standpoint or conclusion, for example: “The Kyoto protocol to reduce global warming is necessary.”

• The data are the facts or opinions that the claim is based on, for example: “Over the last century, the earth’s temperature has been rising as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.”

• The warrant provides the validation for using the data as support for the claim, for example: “Scientists agree that there is no other explanation for this rise in temperature.”

• Optionally, the backing provides specific information supporting the warrant, for example: “Scientists have identified the atmospheric mechanisms whereby greenhouse gases cause a warming of the earth’s surface.”

• A qualifier adds a degree of conviction to the conclusion, indicating the degree of force, which the arguers attribute to a claim, for example: “However, the earth’s temperature has been found to fluctuate over geological time, in some cases without any obvious cause.”

• Exceptions to the claim are expressed by a rebuttal, for example: “The Kyoto protocol would not be necessary if the world’s countries voluntarily reduced their output of greenhouse gases.” (Examples taken from Andriessen, 2006)

This theory can be seen underlying the tool called Araucaria (to be explained in a later blog) where the users can develop Toulmin Diagram to display their understanding of a topic. Therefore, this theory can be seen to be basic to the communication within a group when discussing specific issues. The elements of the argument from each participants view point remain the same when using a linear text display tool or a graphically and spatially displayed text tool. This approach allows the thinking skills to be developed as these are central to learning online.