The Relationship Between Collaborative Discourse And Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills

• In Event: Argument Evaluation in Education

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which meta-level regulation of argumentive discourse goals and strategies relates to improvement in argumentive discourse skill. We examined the argumentative skills of adolescents at a single point, providing a cross-sectional developmental comparison. At the time of assessment one group of sixth graders has been engaging in a year-long argumentation curriculum to develop dialogic argumentative skills (including argument evaluation skills). The second group of eighth graders has been involved in the same intervention for three years. A third group of eighth graders received no intervention.

The study focuses on the discourse between the agreeing partners as they engage in the joint task of formulating their contributions to electronic discourse with a series of opposing pairs. The hypothesis guiding the study is that this benefit is metacognitive. In the argumentive context, the focus is on metastrategic knowing – knowing how to effectively engage in an argument. This metastrategic competence includes knowledge of the goals of argumentation, including attention to the opponent’s position and claims, and knowledge of different discourse strategies. Regulation in the argumentive context involves the speaker’s ability to control strategy use during discourse. Speakers at this level can choose and sequence different strategies effectively, based on knowledge of the utility of the strategies, while understanding how the strategies lead to the dual goals of argumentation – obtaining commitments from the opposing partner to support one’s own arguments and critiquing the opposing arguments to weaken their force. Regulation also allows for continuous adjustments in response to the other speaker’s discourse strategies.

Research shows that young adolescent arguers tend to limit themselves largely to discourse strategies addressed to articulation of their own positions. Over time, greater attention shifts to the opponent’s claims and efforts to address and weaken them. As this occurs, a shift in the awareness of the goals of argumentation may also be developing. Growth of the meta-strategic aspect of argumentation may therefore be critical for progress. Previous studies of argument skill development have not explicitly addressed the relationship between this meta-level development and skill development. To further understand the relationship, the intra-dyad discussion between same-side partners was recorded on audiotape for subsequent analysis.

A coding scheme for the intra-dyad discussion was developed to distinguish meta-level discourse about strategies (planning, evaluating, or predicting) from discussing the content of the arguments. It is hypothesized that analysis of the discussions will show that participants producing a high proportion of meta-level utterances were more likely to show improvement in argumentive skill as measured by a significant increase in use of the counterargument strategy suggesting that enhanced meta-level awareness of strategies and goals of argument, along with rich engagement in argumentation, promote skill development.

The contribution of this study lies in the insight regarding the mechanisms that make collaboration effective. Previous studies indicate that its value lay not in talk per se, the quantity of which did not predict improvement. Instead, a major value of such discourse is its support of meta-level representation and regulation of discourse processes.

Authors

• David Shaenfield, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Nicole Zillmer, Teachers College, Columbia University