Argument Theories of Learning - Pragma-dialectics

Van Eemeren & Grootendorst (1999, 2004) criticise Toulmin for not taking into account the fact that an argument always has, or so they claim, two sides, that of a proponent and that of an opponent. They feel that Toulmin gives the perspective of the proponent of an argument, but ignores the contribution of the opponent. They further the work of Toulmin, as well as the speech act theory of Searle (1965) and Austin (1962), which concerns itself with ‘pragmatics’ or how utterances do things such as persuading people.  They do so, by making this kind of analysis more ‘dialectical’ by situating it in a conversation between two people. The ideal conversation, according to Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, proceeds in four stages:

1.            Confrontation - two people verbalize a difference of opinion,

2.            Opening - they agree on procedural and substantive starting points for resolving this difference of opinion,

3.            Argumentation - the debate is advanced and responded to, and

4.            Conclusion - the parties decide jointly whether and how their difference of opinion has been resolved.

(De Laat & Wegerif, 2007)

The simplest example is when one person expresses doubt about a statement. It is then the task of the other person in the dialogue, the “protagonist”, to justify the assertion to the satisfaction of that person, the “antagonist”, using the starting points agreed to at the opening stage. These four steps for the basis of a dialogue in an online discussion so that critical thinking is developed in a collaborative environment and learning is also takes place by reflecting on the claims and counterclaims within the discussion.

Following on from Grice’s (1975) work on the implicit rules of conversation in general, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992) propose ten rules for the conduct of argumentation as a type of conversation, a type which they call a “critical discussion”. These ten rules are as follows:

1.            Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.

2.            A party that puts forward a standpoint is required to defend it if the other party asks him to do so.

3.            A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

4.            A party may defend his standpoint only by furthering argumentation relating to that standpoint.

5.            A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he himself has left implicit.

6.            A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

7.            A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defence does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.

8.            In his argumentation, a party may only use arguments that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises.

9.            A failed defence of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it, and a conclusive defence of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting his doubt about the standpoint.

10.         A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and he must interpret the other party's formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.

According to Van Eermeren a fallacy is a violation of one of the ten rules. Generically, such fallacies are moves which disrupt the process of logically resolving an expressed difference of opinion. Elements of this understanding can be seen in the way the tools are organised. I believe this can be seen within the openers of InterLoc (to be explained in a later blog) tool which will allow the participants to carry out the argument as suggested by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992).

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.