Mills.argumentation Theory 1

8/13/2019 Mills.argumentation Theory 1

1/14

Running head: ARGUMENTION THEORY AND ONLINE LEARNING 1

Argumentation Theory and Online Learning

Cynthia Mills

Boise State University


2/14

ARUGEMENTAION THEORY AND ONLINE LEARNING 2

Abstract

Argumentation in the learning environment promotes critical thinking and problem

solving skills. In the online learning environment, the integration of this educational

theory is as necessary as in the traditional classroom; however, there are challenges that

the online learning environment presents that differ from the brick and mortar setting;

thus, instructors need to utilize both instructional strategies and technology tools to

ensure that argumentation not only transpires asynchronously and synchronously, but

also that it is cultivated through effective collaboration in order to ensure that all students

have the opportunity to be engaged in higher order thinking.


3/14


Most students enjoy sharing their opinion about certain topics, and when an

instructor is able to harness the energy and conviction of her students, it creates the

opportunity to develop critical thinking skills. In addition, in order for students to

become active participants in their professional and civic lives, the ability to argue

effectively is key; living in a democratic society requires its citizens to not only be able to

formulate arguments, but also to defend them and revise their opinion when needed

(Nussbaum, 2002). Furthermore, when students engage in argumentation, explain their

contentions, and review each others assertions, they are afforded opportunities to explore

learning in different ways and discover how others perceptions influence their

understanding of the world around them. Today, the challenge for effective

argumentation in the online learning environment has surfaced because all too often,

online learners do not reap the same rewards as their brick and mortar counterparts of

experiencing active collaboration to engage in effective argumentation, but with the right

instructional strategies in place and the assistance of todays educational technology,

online teachers can provide an engaging and stimulating argumentative learning

environment.

Argumentation Theory

The argumentation theory is based on the fact that humans play games, and

because games involve argumentation, which is the process of constructing and

critiquing, (Jonassenand Land, 2012 p. 114) argumentationgamesare vital to learning

environments. These types ofgames not only involve authentic activities, but they also

depend on synthesizing information and decision-making. In its most basic form,


4/14


argumentation is the exchange of viewpoints. Scaffolding from this notion, researches

have found that when instructors create an activity that allows students to share their

ideas, provide evidence for those ideas, and allow others to agree or disagree with those

ideas, it promotes deeper learning and understanding of the initial concept. However, it

is important to note that there is a difference between "learning to argue and arguing to

learn (Jonassen and Land, 2012 p. 115). For instance, learning to argue is important in

order to defend ones position; however, arguing to learn pushes the learner to dig deeper

for meaning; and generating such arguments becomes a means to creating conceptual

change or deeper conceptual meaning (Jonassen and Land, 2012 p. 115). Thus,

argumentation refers to critiquing and debating each others assertions that include

justifying and defending the contentions.

First, the study of argumentation seeks to identify multiple learner outcomes.

According to Baker argumentation helps students clarify their own perception of the

material because knowledgebecomes explicit and visible(Jonassen and Land, 2012 p.

116). This happens when students access their background knowledge about a topic,

share their theory with their peers and/or their instructor, learn from their misconceptions,

and formulate new hypothesizes or understand the concept on a deeper level. Therefore,

argumentation can change and develop a students perception by allowing students to

reevaluate their initial assertions (Jonassen and Land, 2012 p. 116). This is due to the

fact that stronger arguments prevail and co-elaboration of new knowledge occurs

(Jonassen and Land, 2012 p. 116). Finally, Baker asserts that argumentation increases

articulation. For instance, during an activity that involves argumentation, students need

to pay attention and become good listeners; they also need to organize their own thoughts


5/14


in order to respond appropriately. Just as the exchange of ideas commence, so too

students acquire negotiating skills, creating chains of reasoning (Jonassen and Land,

2012 p. 117). Overall, heightening articulation skills allows students to convey their

ideas with more clarity, thus adding richness to the discussion and authenticity to the

learning experience.

Secondly, researchers are exploring and improving on ways in which online

instructors and learners can benefit from various approaches or modules of argumentation

because like traditional brick and mortar classrooms, argumentation strategies in the

online learning environment foster critical thinking skills, improve conceptual

knowledge, and develop and increase the ability to construct and the critique issues

(Asterhan and Schwartz, 2010). However, teacherslesson designs, including educational

technology tools and interaction affect student argumentation differently. For instance,

one key concept Asterhan and Schwartz (2010) assert is that simply creating small e-

groups does not guarantee engagement or good argumentation; therefore, it is important

to examine how students should be supported when they are interacting with one another

in the online learning environment in order to increase effective argumentation. In other

words, researchers are asking the question: what can an online instructor implement to

enhance collaborative argumentation? Similarly, researchers are exploring methods of

engagement that are ineffective and trying to determine why certain argumentation

strategies fail.


6/14


Asynchronous Argumentation

In the online learning environment, asynchronous communication is inevitable, but can

this learning environment be used to engage learners in argumentation? If so, what is the

quality of the argumentation; in other words, is it authentic or manufactured? First, it is

necessary to examine the benefits of asynchronous argumentation. To begin with,

asynchronous reflections and assertions can be written when convenient for the user

(Marttunen and Laurinen, 2011). This is key because participants have time to think about and

plan their responses. In addition, asynchronous communication has been characterized as a

democraticmedium which allows various kinds of people regardless of, for example, personal

appearance, occupational status, and level of education, to participate in interaction on an

equal basis(Marttunen and Laurinen, 2011). Without the fear of being judged, users may be

more inclined to share responses. Moreover, participants often view texting as informal;

thus, the message is more about the idea than the grammar, spelling, or other mechanics or

conventions. Finally, asynchronous communication can incorporate a large group, which can

in turn, increase the level of discussion (Marttunen and Laurinen, 2011).

Best Practices for Asynchronous Argumentation

Although the benefits of asynchronous communication appears to translate into the

notion that argumentation strategies will be effective by both allowing learners time to

respond and affording a safe environment to reflect, many students often avoid disagreement

and do not participate in counter-arguments (Golanics and Nussbaum, 2007); thus, minimizing

and even dissembling the goal of improving conceptual understanding and increasing critical

thinking. Therefore, Golanics and Nussbaum (2007) researched the impact of argumentation


7/14


when students were given a goal to not just engage in arguing about the prompt, but to explore

as many reasons as possible to argue the prompt and find a common solution. This is

significant because argumentation is dependent on constructing and critiquing arguments and

making decisions about the information presented. Not only was the theoretical framework of

the study geared to create collaborative argumentation where students worked together on one

goal, but also it was to find out if question elaboration increased arguments and counter-

arguments in order to produce authentic collaborative argumentation. Their findings suggest

that this strategy is effective; asking students to generate as many meanings as possible

impacted advanced students while lower level students benefitted from elaborating questions

with brief mention of arguments and counter-arguments to enhanced balance and argument

development (Golanics and Nussbaum, 2008). Online teachers can improve instructional

design by utilizing these findings; exploratory discourse is key to improving conceptual

knowledge, and it enhances problem-solving skills as seen in Asterhan and Swartz (2013).

Technologies That Support Asynchronous Argumentation

Because effective collaborative argumentation depends on participation and can be

enhanced when students work together on one goal, blogging, a Web 2.0 tool, can be utilized

to facilitate active argumentation. According to Deed and Edwards (2011), blogging allows

students to share subjective ideas in a personal, but public forum, and these ideas are subject

to interactive questioning and discussion. The fact that this environment is interactive

supports an active process of thinking and learning, improv ing understanding and building

knowledge (Deed and Edwards, 2011). Moreover, blogs are organized in such a way that each

posting is a chronological record of thought; learners can review postulations, accumulate


8/14


knowledge and compose new ideas and conceptions based on active reflection. Deed and

Edwards (2011) point out that in order to construct knowledge effectively in this context,

there is a need for clear communication and critical discussion as part of continual analytical

dialogue leading to final agreement. Therefore, students are able to feed off of each others

ideas, and as they progress through the dialogue, the analytical process that is involved in

disseminating the information and deciding on a final resolution mirrors effective

argumentation. Finally, blogs are an easy interface to learn, and many blog sites provide

comprehensive tutorials that provide step-by-step instructions.

Other Web 2.0 tools for educators to consider that can help implement and nurture

asynchronous argumentation are social media sites, including Facebook and Twitter. Based on

data from the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research 2009-2010, 90% of students use

social media (Chen and Bryer, 2012), and since collaboration is necessary for argumentation,

these sites should be employed as a forum where both students and teachers can post prompts

and questions for exploration. According to Chen and Bryer (2012), The responsibility of the

teacher is not just to define, generate or assign content, but it is to help learners build learning

paths and make connections with existing and new knowledge. Learning paths, such as

threads on Facebook and Twitter can assist students as they engage in debates and discussions.

Topics or prompts can be posted, and responses and reflections can be accessed throughout the

day or whenever convenient for the learner. Threads of communication on Facebook or

Twitter can also help learners analyze their own perceptions and revise their contentions as

they construct their own knowledge about a topic. In addition, these sites can generate

collaborative argumentation that incorporates questions, answers and contemplations,

heightening the learning experience and improving critical thinking skills.


9/14


Synchronous Argumentation

Studies show that students learn from collaborative activities, but researchers who have

explored synchronous learning and the effectiveness of facilitating argumentation have

questioned the effectiveness of the instructors role. Perhaps more importantly, Asterhan and

Schwarz (2010) focused on what students thought of e-moderation in online argumentation

and its effectiveness, including the differences between what is perceived to be effective by

instructors and what is perceived to be effective synchronous argumentation by the students.

Another important aspect of this study is the assertion that there are significant differences in

strategies that employ argumentation when it come to face-to-face, asynchronous and

synchronous learning environments, and not every approach can transfer to the respective

learning environment. In addition, the researchers questioned if the educational goals of the

digital argumentation environment are actually being met, and if they are, how does the

teacher truly know? Thus, this naturally lead to examining how online teachers can best help

their students in their debates and discussions. Not only is this research crucial to developing

ways to help online teachers create effective, engaging, and challenging synchronous

argumentation, but also it is vital that the teacher not interfere with the discussion, which can

cause students to withdraw.

Best Practices for Synchronous Argumentation

In order to examine effective synchronous argumentation, it is imperative to understand

effective collaboration because synchronous argumentation depends on students being able to

work together. Many students have experienced online collaboration, but not all students have

benefitted from it. In fact, many students enter the online learning environment expecting to


10/14


study and learn independently, and these students often become resentful when asked to work

with others (Palloff and Prat, 2005). Other issues that may occur that impede collaboration are

lack of communication, reduced participation, time commitments, lack of leadership, cultural

issues, or even course design issues (Palloff and Prat, 2005). To combat these issues,

Ragoonaden and Bordeleau (2000) made the following recommendations:

Collaborative tasks need to be integrated into the course and their occurrenceshould mirror individual work time.

The tasks need to be meaningful and highly interactive; the tasks also need to bebased on the constructivist approach.

When deemed appropriate, matching cultural and academic backgrounds shouldbe attempted. Students need to be encouraged to celebrate diversity.

Leaders should be students who will delegate responsibilities. The instructor needs to understand her role and intervene when necessary,

especially when there is too much conflict or not enough participation among her

students (Palloff and Prat, 2005).

The bottom line is that in order establish effective collaboration that will ultimately be the

building block of active argumentation, effective planning is key; students will respond

positively to being asked to collaborate, thus fostering higher level thinking skills through

argumentative strategies.

Once an effective collaborative environment has been established, instructors need to

integrate instructional strategies to promote synchronous argumentation and some of the most

effective approaches include scaffolding and questioning. To begin with, scaffolding ideas

occurs when the instructor helps to anchor the students prior knowledge to the concept that is


11/14


being presented. Nussbaum (2002) asserts that students who need help learning how to argue

in a more explicit manner need scaffolding to supporting their evidence and see how their

evidence builds upon itself. Nussbaums study involved using a graphic organizer in a

collaborative setting to scaffold an argument; the scaffold allowed students to list points on

different sides of the question for the purpose of choosing the strongest side. (Nussbaum,

2002). This is just one example of scaffolding; however, there are numerous approaches to

this instructional strategy that can be used in a synchronous learning environment. Another

strategy involves questioning; as learners interact with each other, they engage in a

constructivist process of collaborative knowledge generation that can result in community

building, the development of critical thinking skills, and deeper understanding of the material

being studied (Palloff and Prat, 2005). In essence, this is a key ingredient for synchronous

argumentation. The instructor can assist in this process by providing a wide array of

questions, including open-ended questions that guide students to think and theorize, linking or

extension questions that help students develop themes as information emerges, hypothetical

questions so that students can grapple with what if scenarios, cause and effect questions that

push learners to develop possible solutions, and summary and synthesis questions that

incorporate reflection. Overall, research demonstrates that implementing these strategies

work well to support meaningful interaction and can springboard effective collaboration into

successful argumentation.

Technologies That Support Synchronous Argumentation

Tools including Skype, Google Hangouts, Elluminate and Blackboard and Facetime, to

name a few of the most popular, allow users to call, see, message, and share with others in


12/14


real time. Because of their immediate collaborative nature, these tools have many advantages

to assist synchronous argumentation. For instance, Elluminate allows users to share a virtual

workspace along with several different file formats. When instructors use these

communication tools, students are able to be there and experience the prompts or the task at

hand. Instructors can also scaffold information verbally, by messaging, or by uploading

graphic organizers or other files to assist learners as they begin to formulate their opinions on

the topic. Moreover, according to Santovena and Sonia (2012),It is evident that the use of

communication tools in real time, reinforces the professional interaction, socio-emotional

relationships and personal interactions, in short, it is a tool that facilitates and enhances

interpersonal communication between users. This is an important environment to create for

effective synchronous argumentation because learners need to be able to establish a rapport

with their peers that make it safe and comfortable for them to engage in the exchange of ideas.

Moreover, these tools allow the instructor to pop in and out of the virtual classroom, assisting

when and if necessary so as not to be overbearing or impede the argumentation process. The

immediacy of communication and fostering rapid response to a bilateral discussion offers a

greater degree of interaction between the students and between the instructor and the students.

(Santovena and Sonia, 2012). These technology tools allow online teachers to utilize effective

collaboration strategies to develop critical thinkers through argumentation.

Conclusion

Students enjoy sharing their opinion and witnessing their own assertions evolve into a

belief system that can be supported by evidence. When students are immersed in

argumentation, they construct knowledge through collaboration and dissemble and assemble


13/14


prior understanding and new information into active meaning; this critical thinking skill

enables students to be active members in the community and to participate in the democratic

process. As more and more opportunities for online classes emerge, this instructional theory

has its place, and technology tools that enhance argumentation need to be utilized to ensure

that students are afforded this learning opportunity.

.


14/14


References

Asterhan, S.C. &Schwarz, B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-

argumentation. Computer-supported collaborative learning. (5) 259-282.

Chen, B. & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigation instructional strategies for using social media

for formal and informal learning.International review of research in open and

distance learning. (13) 87-104.

Baran, B. Facebook as a formal instructional environment.British journal of educational

technology.(41) 146-149.

Deed, C. & Edwards, A. Unrestricted student blogging: implications for active learning in

a virtual text-based environment.Active learning in higher education. (12) 11-21.

Golanics, J.D. & Nussbaum, E.M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation

through question elaboration and goal instructions.Journal of assisted learning.

(24) 167-180.

Jonassen & Land (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Marttunen, M., & Laurinen L. (2011). Quality of students argumentation by e-mail.

Learning environments research. (5) 99-123.

Nussbaum, M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The

social studies. 79-83.

Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Santovena, C. & Soma, M. (2012).Electronic journal of research in educational

psychology. (10)447-474.

Documents

Mills.argumentation Theory 1