Cognition and Instruction/Argumentation and Critical Thinking

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Critical Thinking (CT) and Argumentation are closely linked skills and concepts. To be effective in either skill, the other is necessary. CT provides the processes needed for argument formulation, while Argumentation allows one to utilize and apply CT skills through logical reasoning. The concept of CT incorporates thinking processes that work in conjunction with the thinker's disposition, that is their attitude, to produce CT. The thinker's attitude towards thinking predisposes them to having the motivation to go through CT processes. On the other hand, argumentation is highly structured in it's form of reasoning. The usage of CT is applied in order to generate the different components of an argument. The formulation of an argument is based on the ideas and reasoning created from CT processes that delve into the significance, associations and relationships between concepts.

'The Thinker' by Auguste Rodin, 14.75 inches, North Carolina Museum of Art

Since these two concepts are often intertwined in instruction, their relationship is mutually beneficial; having one increases the ability of the other. Having CT skills enhances argumentation ability and having argument analysis skills improves CT. In an instructional setting, there is a distinction to be made between CT and Argumentation as tools for Instruction and the instruction of CT and Argumentation. The former takes on a more cognitive and philosophical approach while the latter focuses mostly on application and practice. Specific stand-alone Skills Programs, such as the CoRT Thinking Materials program, have been shown to improve creative writing elements that are transferable to the development of CT[1]. From a domain specific approach, research on the instruction of science also aids in developing CT and argumentation skills [2][3][4]. The instructional application of this chapter will focus on the practical implementation of tools and programs that facilitate the development of CT and Argumentation.

Critical Thinking[edit | edit source]

Critical thinking, which includes cognitive processes such as weighing and evaluating information, leads to more thorough understanding of an issue or problem. As a type of reflection, critical thinking also promotes an awareness of one's own perceptions, intentions, feelings and actions.[5]

Components of Critical Thinking
Knowledge Developing a knowledge base and specific tactics to aid the acquisition of knowledge are more easily controlled through instruction.
Inference Forming connections between an existing knowledge base through the use of deduction and/or induction.
Evaluation Analyzing, judging, weighing, making forming moral judgements, criticizing and questioning external information presented as well as one's own knowledge base.
Metacognition The process of "thinking about thinking". This involves the assessment of whether one's own decisions, opinions or beliefs are informed and well supported.

Critical Thinking Dispositions[edit | edit source]

These are characteristics of one's attitude or personality that facilitate the process of developing CT skills:

  1. Inquisitive
  2. Systematic
  3. Judicious
  4. Truthseeking
  5. Analytical
  6. Open-minded
  7. Confidence in reasoning

Factors that Influence one's CT Disposition[edit | edit source]

There are many factors that can influence one's disposition towards CT, the first of these is culture [6]. There are many aspects of culture that can impact the ability for people to think critically. For instance, religion can negatively impact the development of CT [7]. Many religions are founded upon faith which often requires wholehearted belief without evidence or support, the nature of organized religion counters the very premise of CT which is to evaluate the validity and credibility of any claim. Growing up in an environment such as this can be detrimental to the development of CT skills. This kind of environment can dampen dispositions that question religious views or examine the validity of religion. Another cultural factor that can be detrimental to a CT disposition is that of authority [8]. When a child is raised under the conditions of an authoritarian parenting style it can be detrimental to many aspects of their lives, but especially to their CT skills as they are taught not to question the credibility of authority and often receive punishment if they do. This is also applicable in the classroom[9] where teachers who don’t foster an atmosphere of openness or allow students to question what they are taught can impact CT development as well. Classrooms where questions are rejected or home environments where there is a high level of parental power and control can all cripple the ability of students to think critically. As well, students will have been conditioned to not think this way their entire lives [10]. However, despite these cultural limitations, there are ways in which a disposition for CT can be fostered in both the home and in the classroom.

Classroom Structure[edit | edit source]

Classroom structure is a primary way in which CT dispositions can be highlighted. Fostering a classroom structure where students are a part of the decision making process of what they are studying can be very helpful in creating CT dispositions [11]. Such structures help students become invested in what they are learning as well as promote a classroom atmosphere in which students may feel free to question the teacher as well as other students' opinions and beliefs about different subjects. Allowing the freedom to scrutinize and evaluate information that has been given to students is an effective way of creating a classroom environment that can encourage students to develop CT dispositions. This freedom allows for the students to remain individuals within the larger classroom context and gives them the power to evaluate and make decisions on their own. Allowing the students to share power in the classroom can be extremely beneficial in helping the students stay motivated and analytical of classroom teachings [12]. Teachers can also employ a variety of techniques that can help students become autonomous in the classroom as well. Giving students the opportunity to take on different roles can be effective in creating CT dispositions such as making predictions and contemplating problems [13]. Allowing students to engage with problems that are presented instead of just teaching them what the teacher or textbook believes to be true is essential for students to develop their own opinions and individual though. In addition to this, gathering data and information on the subject is an important part of developing CT dispositions, doing so allows for students to go out and find resources that they themselves can analyze and come to conclusions on their own [14]. Using these aspects of CT students can most effectively relate to the predictions that were first made and critique the validity of the findings[15].

Self-Regulation and Critical Thinking[edit | edit source]

In conjunction with instructing CT, teachers need to keep in mind the self-regulation of their students as well. Students need to be able to maintain motivation and have a proactive attitude towards their own learning when learning a new skill. In an article by Phan (2010), he argues that self-regulated students that have better goal setting, have more personal responsibility for their learning and can maintain their motivation are more cognitively flexible and hence more inclined to utilize CT. Since CT skills are highly reflective, they help in self-regulated learning (SRL), and in turn, self-regulatory strategies aid in developing CT skills. These two cognitive practices are assets to students’ growth and development [16].

Self-regulation provides students with the basic metacognitive awareness required for proactive learning. This proactivity allows students to engage in the cognitive processes of CT, such as evaluation, reflection and inference. Through one’s metacognitive ability to asses one’s own thoughts, one develops the capability to become autonomous in one’s learning [17]. Instead of having a supervisor overlooking every task, the learner can progress at their own pace while monitoring their performance thereby engaging in SRL. Part of this process would include periodic reflection upon the strategies that one uses when completing a task. This reflection can facilitate the student’s learning by using CT to evaluate which strategies best suit their own learning based on their cognitive needs.

The complex nature of CT suggests that it requires a long developmental process requiring guidance, practice and reinforcement. To facilitate this process, self-monitoring as a first step to self-regulation can jumpstart reflective thought through assessing one’s own educational performance. This assessment promotes self-efficacy through generating motivational beliefs about one’s academic capabilities [18]. From there, through practice, students can extend their CT skills beyond themselves and into their educational contexts. With practice, students use their metacognitive strategies as a basis for developing CT in the long run.

Argumentation[edit | edit source]

Argumentation is the process of assembling and communicating reasons for or against an idea, that is, the act of making and presenting arguments. CT in addition to clear communication makes a good argument. It is the process through which one rationally solves problems, issues and disputes as well as resolving questions [19].

The practice of argumentation consists of two dimensions: dialogue and structure [20]. The dialogue in argumentative discussions focus on specific speech acts – actions done through language (i.e. accept, reject, refute, etc.) – that help advance the speaker’s position. The structure of an argument helps distinguish the different perspectives in discussion and highlight positions for which speakers are arguing [21].

The Process of Argumentation[edit | edit source]

Argumentation Stages[edit | edit source]

The psychological process of argumentation that allows one the produce, analyze and evaluate arguments[22]. These stages will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

1. Production How one produces reasons for a standpoint, opinion or assertion.
2. Analysis Assessing the validity of proposed arguments.
3. Evaluation Exploring the different views of an argument.

The Impact of Argumentation on Learning[edit | edit source]

Argumentation does not only impact the development of CT and vice versa, it affects many other aspects of learning as well. For instance, a study done on a junior high school science class showed that when students engaged in argumentation, they drew heavily on their prior knowledge and experiences [23]. Not only did argumentation work to make the students use their prior knowledge, it also helped them consolidate knowledge as well as elaborate on their understanding of the subject at a higher level [24]. These are just a few of the ways in which argumentation can be seen to impact aspects of learning other than the development of CT.

The Relationship between Critical Thinking and Argumentation[edit | edit source]

Argumentation and CT would appear to have a close relationship in instruction and also in influencing one another in an education setting. Many studies have shown the impact that both of these elements can have on one another. Data suggests that when CT is infused into instruction it impacts the ability of students to argue[25], tasks that involve both critical thinking and creative thinking must be of an argumentative nature[26], and that argument analysis and storytelling can improve CT[27]. In other words it would appear that both argumentation impact the development of the other in students and that both impact other aspects of learning and cognition.

How Critical Thinking Improves Argumentation[edit | edit source]

CT facilitates the evaluation of the information necessary to make an argument. It aids in the judgement of the validity of each position. It is used to assess the credibility of sources and helps in approaching the issue from multiple points of view. The elements of CT and argumentation have many common features. For example, examining evidence and counter-evidence of a statement and the information that backs up these claims are both facets of creating a sound argument and thinking critically. The impact of how CT explicitly impacts one’s ability to argue and reason with reference to the aforementioned four CT components will be examined in this section. First, there needs to be an examination of the aspects of CT and how they can be impacted by argumentation. The first component, Knowledge, as stated by Bruning et. al (2011), actively shapes the way in which one resolves problems[28]. It is therefore essential that students have a solid foundation of knowledge of whatever it is that they are arguing or are arguing about in their own heads. The ability to use well founded information in order to effectively analyze the credibility of new information is imperative for students who wish to increase their argumentative abilities. The second component of CT that is important for argumentation is Inference. As Chesñevar and Simari (2007) discuss in their examination of how we develop arguments, inference and deduction are essential aspects of reaching new conclusions from knowledge that is already known or proven[29]. In other words, the ability to reach conclusions from known information is pivotal in developing and elaborating an argument. As well, the use of induction, a part of the CT process, is important to argumentation. As Bruning et al. suggest, the ability to make a general conclusion from known information is an essential part of the CT process[30]. Ontañón and Plaza (2015) make the argument that induction can be used in argumentation through communication with one another. Moreover, making inductions of general conclusions using the complete information that every member of the group can provide shows how interaction can be helpful through the use of induction in argumentation[31]. Therefore, it can be seen how induction, an important part of CT, can have a significant impact on argumentation and collaboration. The final component of CT, that may be the most important in its relationship to argumentation, is Evaluation. The components of Evaluation indicated by Bruning et al. are analyzing, judging and weighing. These are three essential aspects of creating a successful argument [32]. Hornikx and Hahn (2012) provide a framework for three key elements of argumentation that are heavily attached in these Bruning et al.'s three aspects of CT[33].

Production, Analysis, and Evaluation[edit | edit source]

The three aspects of argumentation that Hornikx and Hahn focus on in their research is the production, analysis and evaluation of arguments[34]. Producing an argument uses the key aspects of CT; there must be evaluation, analysis, judgement and weighing of the argument that one wishes to make a stand on. Analysis of arguments and analysis in CT go hand in hand, there must be a critical analysis of information and viewpoints in order to create a successful and fully backed argument. As well, evaluation is used similarly in argumentation as it is derived from CT. Assessing the credibility of sources and information is an essential part in finding articles and papers that can assist someone in making an informed decision. The final aspect of evaluation in critical thinking is metacognition, thinking about thinking or monitoring one's own thoughts [35]. Monitoring one's own thoughts and taking time to understand the rationality of the decisions that one makes is also a significant part of argumentation. According to Pinto et al.’s research, there is a strong correlation between one's argumentation ability and metacognition.[36] In other words, the ability to think about one’s own thoughts and the validity of those thoughts correlates positively with the ability to formulate sound arguments. The transfer of thoughts into speech/argumentation shows that CT influences argumentation dramatically, however some research suggests that the two interact in different ways as well. It can clearly be seen through the research presented that argumentation is heavily influenced by CT skills, such as knowledge, inference, evaluation and metacognition. However there are also strong implications that instruction of CT in a curriculum can bolster argumentation. A study conducted by Bensley et. al (2010) suggests that when CT skills are directly infused into a course compared to groups that received no CT instruction, those who received CT instruction showed significant gains in their ability of argument analysis[37]. There can be many arguments made for the implication of specific CT skills to impact argumentation, but this research shows that explicit teaching of CT in general can increase the ability of students to more effectively analyze arguments as well. This should be taken into account that Skills Programs mentioned later in this chapter should be instituted if teachers wish to foster argumentation as well as CT in the classroom.

How Argumentation Improves Critical Thinking[edit | edit source]

Argumentation is a part of the CT process, it clarifies reasoning and the increases one's ability to assess viable information. It is a part of metacognition in the sense that one needs to evaluate their own ideas. CT skills such as induction and/or deduction are used to create a structured and clear argument. Research by Glassner and Schwarz (2007) shows that argumentation lies at the intersection of critical and creative thinking. They argue that reasoning, which is both critical and creative, is done through argumentation in adolescents. They suggest that reasoning is constantly being influenced by other perspectives and information. The ability to think creatively as well as critically about new information is managed by argumentation [38]. The back and forth process of accommodating, evaluating, and being open minded to new information can be argued as critical and creative thinking working together. However, the way in which one reaches conclusions from information is created from the ability to weigh this information, and then to successfully draw a conclusion regarding the validity of the solution that students come to. There is also a clear correlation of how argumentation helps students to nurture CT skills as well.

It is clear that CT can directly impact argumentation, but this relationship can also be seen as bidirectional, with argumentation instruction developing the CT skills. A study by Gold et al. shows that CT skills can be fostered through the use of argument analysis and storytelling in instruction[39]. This research suggests that argumentation and argument analysis are not only be beneficial to students, but also to older adults. This study was conducted using mature adult managers as participants. The article outlines four skills of CT that can be impacted by the use of argument analysis and storytelling: critique of rhetoric, tradition, authority, and knowledge. These four skills of CT are somewhat deeper than many instructed in high schools and extremely important to develop. The ability of argumentation to impact CT in a way that enables a person to gain a better perspective on their view about these things is essential to developing personal values as well as being able to use argumentation and CT to critique those values when presented with new information. The ability of argumentation to influence the ability of individuals to analyze their own traditions and knowledge is important for all students as it can give them better insight into what they value.

Argumentation is beneficial to CT skills as well as creative thinking skills in high school students. Research done by Demir and İsleyen (2015) shows that argumentation based a science learning approach in 9th graders improves both of types of thinking[40]. The ability of students to use argumentation to foster CT as well as creative thinking can be seen as being very beneficial, as mentioned earlier creative and CT skills use argumentation as a means of reasoning to draw conclusions, it is therefore not surprising that argumentation in instruction also fosters both of these abilities. In summation, it can clearly be seen that there is a link between both argumentation and CT along with many skills in the subset of CT skills. Explicit instruction of both of these concepts seems to foster the growth of the other and can be seen as complementary. In the next sections of this chapter how these aspects can be beneficial if taught within the curriculum and how they go hand in hand in fostering sound reasoning as well as skills that will help students throughout their lives will be examined.

Instructional Application of Argumentation and Critical Thinking[edit | edit source]

A debate is a practical application of argumentation and CT

Teaching Tactics[edit | edit source]

An effective method for structuring the instruction of CT is to organize the thinking skills into a clear and sequential steps. The order in which these steps aid in guiding the student towards internalizing those steps in order to apply them in their daily lives. By taking a deductive approach, starting from broader skills and narrowing them down to task-specific skills helps the student begin from what they know and generate something that they hadn't known before through CT. In the spirit of CT, a student's awareness of their own skills also plays an important role in their learning. In the classroom, they should be encouraged to reflect upon the process through which they completed a goal rather than just the result. Through the encouragement of reflection, students can become more aware of the necessary thinking skills necessary for tasks, such as Argumentation.

Instructing CT and Argumentation predisposes the instruction to using CT skills first. In designing a plan to teach CT, one must be able to critically evaluate and assess different methods and make an informed decision on which would work best for one's class. There are a variety of approaches towards instructing CT. Descriptive models consist of explanations of how "good" thinking occurs. Specifically, it focuses on thinking strategies such as heuristics to assess information and how to make decisions. Prescriptive models consist of explanations of what good thinking should be. In a sense, these models give a prototype, a "prescription", of what good thinking is. This approach is comparatively less applicable and sets a high standard of what is expected of higher order thinking. In addition to evaluating which approach would work best for them, prior to teaching CT, instructors need to carefully select the specific types of CT skills that they want students to learn. This process involves assessing factors such as age range, performance level as well as cognitive ability of one's class in order to create a program that can benefit most of, if not all, the students. A final aspect of instruction to consider as an educator is whether direct or indirect instruction will be used to teach CT. Direct instruction refers to the explicit teaching of CT skills that emphasizes rules and steps for thinking. This is most effective when solutions to problems are limited or when the cognitive task is easy. In contrast, indirect instruction refers to a learner-oriented type of teaching that focuses on the student building their own understanding of thinking. This is most effective when problems are ambiguous, unclear or open to interpretation such as moral or ethical decisions [41].

One example of indirect CT instruction is through the process of writing literature reviews. According to Chandler and Dedman, having the skills to collect, assess and write literature reviews as well as summarize results of studies requires CT. In a teaching note, they evaluated a BSW (Baccalaureate of Social Work) program that strived to improve CT in undergraduate students. Specifically, they assert that practical writing assignments, such as creating literature reviews, help students combine revision and reflection while expanding their thinking to evaluate multiple perspectives on a topic. They found that upon reframing the assignment as a tool to facilitate students in becoming critical reviewers, students viewed the literature review as a summation of course material in addition to an opportunity to improve critical reading and writing skills. Through questioning during discussions, students were guided to analyze the authority and credibility of their articles. The students actively sought for more evidence to support articles on their topics. They found that students successfully created well synthesized literature reviews at the end of the BSW program [42]. This program used implicit instruction of CT skills through dialogue between instructor and students as well as peer engagement. Instead of explicitly stating specific skills or steps to learn CT, the instructors lead the students to practice CT through an assignment. As students worked on the assignment, they needed to use reasoning, analysis and inferential skills in order to synthesize and draw conclusions around the evidence they found on their topics. Practical application of CT skills through an assignment helped students develop CT through indirect instruction.

Skills Programs for CT[edit | edit source]

These programs aid in the formulation of critical thinking skills through alternative methods of instruction such as problem-solving. They are usually targeted towards special populations such as students with learning disabilities or cognitive deficits.

The CoRT Thinking Materials[edit | edit source]

The CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust) program is based on de Bono’s idea that thinking skills should be taught in school as a subject[43]. The Thinking Materials are geared towards the improvement of thinking skills. This skills program takes on a Gestalt approach and emphasizes the perceptual factor of problem solving. It usually spans over the course of 2 years and is suitable for a wide age range of children. The lessons strive to develop creative thinking, problem-solving as well as interpersonal skills. The materials are split into 6 units and cover topics such as planning, analyzing, comparing, selecting, evaluating and generating alternatives. A typical unit has leaflets covering a single topic, followed by examples using practice items. The leaflets are usually effective in group settings. The focus of these units are to practice thinking skills, therefore much of the instructional time is spent on practicing the topics brought up in the leaflets[44].

Much of the empirical research on this stand-alone program revolves around the development of creative thinking, however, it is relatively more extensive in comparison to the other programs mentioned in this chapter. The CoRT program has been shown to improve creativity in gifted students. Al-Faoury and Khwaileh (2014) assessed the effectiveness of the CoRT on gifted students’ creative writing abilities. The students were given a pretest that evaluated the fluency, flexibility and originality in writing creative short stories [45]. Students in the experimental group were taught 20 CoRT lessons in total with 10 from CoRT 1 “Breadth” and 10 from CoRT 4 “Creativity” over the course of three months while the control group received traditional lessons on creative writing. The posttest followed the same parameters as the pretest and the results were analyzed by comparing pre and posttest scores. The researchers found a statistically significant effect of CoRT on the experimental group’s fluency, flexibility and originality scores. The mean scores of the experimental groups in all three elements were higher than the control group[46]. These findings suggest that the CoRT program aids gifted students in creative writing skills as indicated through the use of rhetorical devices (metaphor, analogy, etc.), developing characters through dialogue and the control of complex structures [47]. The flexibility and fluency of writing is also applicable to the practice of argumentation and CT. In developing the ability to articulate and modify ideas, students can transfer these skills from creative writing towards higher-order cognitive processes such as CT and argumentation.

The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program (FIE)[edit | edit source]

The FIE is a specialized program focused on mediated learning experiences that strives to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills. Mediation is learning through interaction between the student and the mediator. Similar to Vygotsky's scaffolding, mediation is student-oriented and hinges upon 4 parameters: Intentionality, Reciprocity, Transcendence and Meaning.[48] Intentionality emphasizes the differences between mediation and interaction where the student and mediator have a common goal in mind. Reciprocity involves the student-oriented mentality of mediation, the response of the student hold most importance over academic results. Transcendence focuses on the connectivity of the mediation, it encourages the formation of associations and applications that stretch beyond the scope of the immediate material. Lastly, Meaning in mediation is where the student and mediator explicitly identify "why" and "what for" which promotes dialogue between the two during mediation.[49][50]

The "instruments" used to facilitate instruction are a series of paper and pencil exercises geared towards practicing internalizing higher order thinking strategies. The instruments cover domains such as analytic perception, spatial organization, categorization, comparison and many more. The implementation of this program varies across countries and is also dependent on the targeted population. A typical program contains 14 units with 3-4 sessions for a few hours every week administered by trained IE staff and teachers.[51]

The Productive Thinking Program[edit | edit source]

The Productive Thinking Program consists of the development of planning skills, generating and checking hypotheses as well as creating new ideas. This program is designed as a set of 15 lessons aimed at being completed over one semester. The target population of the program is upper-level elementary school students. The lessons are administered through the use of narrative booklets, often taking a detective-like approach to problem solving where the student is the detective solving a mystery. A structured sequence of steps guides the student to attain an objective specific to the lesson at hand.[52] Following the booklet or story, supplementary problems are given in order for students to apply and practice learned skills.[53]

The IDEAL Problem Solver[edit | edit source]

The IDEAL Problem Solver structures problem-solving as 5 steps using the acronym IDEAL. First, (I)dentify the problem, the solver needs to find out what the problem is. Second, (D)efine the problem involves having a clear picture of the entire problem before trying to solve it. Third, (E)xplore the alternatives, meaning that the solver needs to assess the potential solutions available. Fourth, (A)cting on a plan, that is, applying the solution and doing the act of solving. Lastly, (L)ooking at the effects which encompasses the evaluation of the consequences of the chosen solution. IDEAL is flexible in that it can be adapted to suit a wide age range and different levels of ability in its application. It can also be applied to different domains such as composition or physics.[54]

Instructing Argumentation[edit | edit source]

Research on argumentation is a comparatively new field of study for education, but has been noted to be of significant importance to almost all educational settings. Grade schools, high schools, and colleges now emphasize the use of argumentation in the classroom as it is seen as the best way for communication and debate in a both vocational and educational settings around the world in the near future.[55] A longitudinal study done by Crowell and Kuhn showed that an effective way to help students gain argumentative skills was through consistent and dense application of argumentation in the classroom and as homework.[56] During this longitudinal study students were exposed to a variety of different methods from which they gained argumentative abilities. The activities employed such as peer collaboration, using computers, reflection activities, individual essays, and small group work all have implications for being valuable in teaching argumentation although it is not clear which ones are the most effective.[57] Data also showed that students all rose to a similar level of argumentative ability, no matter what they scored on argumentative tests before the study began. This shows that even students with seemingly no argumentative skills can be instructed to become as skilled or more skilled than their peers who tested higher than them at the beginning of the study.[58] The implications for this research on instructing argumentation are not the only solution to helping students become well-versed arguers. Furthermore, it has shown promise for the educators that wish to help their students gain argumentative abilities.

Dialogue and Argumentation[edit | edit source]

Research by Crowell and Kuhn (2011) highlights collaborative dialogical activities as practical interventions in the development of argumentative skills. The researchers implemented a longitudinal argumentative intervention that used topic cycles to structure a middle school philosophy class [59]. The students had class twice a week for 50 minutes each class over the span of three years. The intervention is as follows: first, students were split into small groups on the same side of the argument to generate ideas around the topic (“for” and “against” teams). Then individuals from either side argue with an opponent through an electronic medium. Finally, the students engage in a whole class debate. These three stages were termed Pregame, Game and Endgame, respectively. After the intervention, students were required to write individual essays regarding the topic through which their argumentative skills would be assessed [60]. The results showed an increased in the generation of dual perspective arguments in the intervention group. Such arguments require the arguer to assume the opposing stance to one’s own and reason its implications. This type of argument reflects a higher-order reasoning that requires critical assessment of multiple perspectives. These results did not begin to appear until year two and was only found statistically significant in year three suggesting that argumentative skills have a longer development trajectory than other lower-level cognitive skills [61]. Through this stand-alone intervention, the collaborative aspect of dialogical activities facilitates the development of intellectual dispositions necessary for good argumentation [62].

Further research suggests that teaching through the use of collaborative discussions and argumentative dialogue is an effective teaching strategy [63]. Through argumentation, students can acquire knowledge of concepts as well as the foundational ideas behind these concepts. In formulating arguments, students need to generate premises that provide structure to an argument through accepted definitions or claims. Argumentation helps students reveal and clarify misconceptions as well as elaborate on background knowledge. The two aforementioned dimensions of argumentation – dialogue and structure – are often used in assessing and measuring argumentative performance [64]. Specifically, through student-expert dialogue, the students can be guided to give certain arguments and counterarguments depending on the expert’s dialectical decisions [65]. This scaffolding helps the student engage in more critical evaluations that delve deeper into the topic in discussion.

In a study using content and functional coding schemes of argumentative behavior during peer-peer and peer-expert dialogue pairings, Macagno, Mayweg-Paus and Kuhn (2014) found that through student-expert dialogues, students were able to later formulate arguments that dealt with abstract concepts at the root of the issue at hand (i.e. ethical principles, conflict of values) in comparison to peer-peer dialogues [66]. The expert used more specific and sophisticated ways of attacking the student’s argument, such as suggesting an alternative solution to the problem at hand, which in turn enhanced the performance of the student in later meta-dialogues [67]. The results suggest that the practical application of argumentation through collaborate activities facilitates the development of argumentation skills. Similar to CT skills development, rather than teaching, implicit instruction through the practice of argumentation in interactive settings helps its development.

Science and Argumentation[edit | edit source]

Much of the literature surrounding the application of argumentation in the classroom revolves around the scientific domain. Argumentation is often used as a tool in scientific learning to enhance CT skills, improve class engagement and activate prior knowledge and beliefs around the subject [68]. In order to articulate and refine scientific theories and knowledge, scientists themselves utilize argumentation [69]. Jonassen and Kim (2010) assert that science educators often emphasize the role of argumentation more than other disciplines [70]. Argumentation supports the learning of how to solve well-structures problems as well as ill-structured ones in science, and from there by extension, in daily life. Specifically, the ill-structured ones reflect more practical everyday problems where goals and limitations are unclear and there are multiple solution pathways as well as multiple factors for evaluating possible solutions [71].

Through argumentation, students learn to use sound reasoning and CT in order to assess and justify their solution to a problem. For example, a well-structured problem would be one posed in a physics class where concrete laws and formulas dictate the solution pathway to a problem or review questions found at the end textbook chapters which require the application of a finite set of concepts and theories. An ill-structured problem would be finding the cause of heart disease in an individual. Multiple developmental and lifestyle factors contribute to this one problem in addition to the various different forms of heart disease that need to be evaluated. This sort of problem requires the application of knowledge from other domains such as nutrition, emotional well-being and genetics. Since ill-structured problems do not have a definite answer, students are provided with an opportunity to formulate arguments that justify their solutions [72]. Through the practice of resolving problems in science, such as these, students can use CT to develop their argumentative ability.

One’s willingness to argue as well as one's ability to argue also play a significant role in learning science[73]. For one science is at its core, extremely argumentative. If students have to ability to engage in argumentation at an early age then there knowledge of specific content such as science can grow immensely. The main reason for this is argumentative discourse, being able to disagree with others is extremely important because for adolescents they are at an age which is fundamentally social (ie junior to senior high) using this social ability is pivotal as students at this point may have the confidence to disagree with one another. When a student disagrees with another in argument in a classroom setting it gives them an opportunity to explain the way in which they think about the material. This verbalization of one’s own thoughts and ideas on a subject can help with learning the subject immensely[74]. It also allows for the student to reflect upon and expand their ideas as they have to present them to the class which helps with learning. This also provides the opportunity for the student to identify any misconceptions they have about the subject at hand as more than likely they will receive rebuttal arguments from others in their class[75]. All these factors are aspects of CT and contribute to the learning of the concept and conceptual change in the student which is what learning is all about. The nature of adolescent social behaviour could provide a window through which argumentation could benefit their learning in dramatic ways in learning science [76].

Instructing through Academic Controversy[edit | edit source]

Using the technique of academic controversy could be an effective way of teaching both argumentation and CT skills to students. Academic controversy involves dividing a cooperative group of four in two pairs of students and assigning them opposing positions of an argument or issue, after which the two pairs each argue for their position. The groups then switch their positions and argue again, finally the group of four is asked to come up with an all-around solution to the problem [77]. This activity can be effective in instructing both aspects of argumentation and CT, though it may be a bit dated. The activity is argumentative by nature, making students come up with reasons and claims for two sets of arguments. This equilibrium is important to the argumentative process because provides the students with an opportunity to evaluate the key points of their argument and the opposition's which could be beneficial in any debate. As well, this activity is geared to engage students in a few aspects of CT such as evaluation, since the students must assess each side of the argument. It also engages metacognitive processes as the students must come up with a synthesized conclusion with their peers of their own arguments, a process which requires them to be both analytical and open minded. This activity is a good way of increasing both CT skills and argumentation as it requires students to be open-minded, but also engage in analytical debate.

Glossary[edit | edit source]

Academic Controversy: a two-round debate process through which a cooperative group of 4 are divided into opposing pairs that engage in a debate. Each pair argues for their own position and switch to the opposing position in the next round.

Analysis: The identification and selection of relevant information to allow for further inference and interpretation

Argumentation: The process of using reasoning to support or refute a claim or idea

Critical Thinking: A type a reflective thinking consisting of weighing, evaluating and understanding information

Deduction: A type of reasoning where specific conclusions are made from general, given information

Descriptive Model: An instructional approach that explains how good thinking occurs

Direct Instruction: The explicit and teacher-oriented instruction of material with emphasis on specific rules and aspects of thinking

Disposition: A person's attitude and beliefs towards something

Evaluation: An umbrella term for the sub skills of analyzing, judging, and weighing

Indirect Instruction: The learner-oriented instruction of material with emphasis on how the learner interprets the taught material

Induction: A type of reasoning where general conclusions are made from specific information

Inference: A type of connection or association between two units of knowledge

Knowledge: Information that one has, this can include connections and associations between known information

Metacognition: Thinking about thinking

Prescriptive Model: An instructional approach that explains the criteria and characteristics of good thinking

Production: The generation of arguments

Self-Regulation: The process of being metacognitively, behaviourally, and motivationally active in one's own learning

Skills Programs: instructional curriculums designed to facilitate the development of CT skills through alternative teaching methods such as problem-solving

Suggested Readings[edit | edit source]

  1. Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M.A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4). 1102-1134. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308326084.
  2. Phan, H.P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema, 22(2). 284-292.
  3. Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B.Z. (1995). Mediated Learning Experience and Psychological Tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s Perspective in a Study of Student Learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-75.
  4. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402512.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Al-Faoury, O.H., & Khwaileh, F. (2014). The Effect of Teaching CoRT Program No. (4) Entitles “Creativity” on the Gifted Learners’ Writing in Ein El-Basha Center for Gifted Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2249-2257. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.11.2249-2257.
  2. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  3. ↑ Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
  4. ↑ Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958
  5. ↑ Phan, H.P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema, 22(2). 284-292.
  6. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  7. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  8. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  9. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  10. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  11. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  12. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  13. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  14. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  15. ↑ Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2
  16. ↑ Phan, H.P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema, 22(2). 284-292.
  17. ↑ Phan, H.P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema, 22(2). 284-292.
  18. ↑ Phan, H.P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema, 22(2). 284-292.
  19. ↑ Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
  20. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  21. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  22. ↑ Hornikx, J., & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 225-243. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.674715.
  23. ↑ Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213
  24. ↑ Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213
  25. ↑ Bensley, A., Crowe, D., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. (2010). Teaching and assessing CT skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 91-96. doi:10.1080/00986281003626656
  26. ↑ Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? argumentation?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10-18. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001
  27. ↑ Gold J., Holman D., & Thorpe R. (2002). The role of argument analysis and story telling in facilitating critical thinking. Management Learning, 33(3), 371-388. doi:10.1177/1350507602333005
  28. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  29. ↑ Chesñevar, I., & Simari, G. (2007). Modelling inference in argumentation through labelled deduction: Formalization and logical properties. Logica Universalis, 2007, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 93, 1(1), 93-124. doi:10.1007/s11787-006-0005-4
  30. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  31. ↑ Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2015). Coordinated inductive learning using argumentation-based communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 29(2), 266-304. doi:10.1007/s10458-014-9256-2
  32. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  33. ↑ Hornikx, J. & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 225-243. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.674715.
  34. ↑ Hornikx, J. & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 225-243. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.674715.
  35. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  36. ↑ Pinto, M., Iliceto, P., & Melagno, S. (2012). Argumentative abilities in metacognition and in metalinguistics: A study on university students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 35-58. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0064-7
  37. ↑ Bensley, A., Crowe, D., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. (2010). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 91-96. doi:10.1080/00986281003626656
  38. ↑ Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? argumentation?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10-18. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001
  39. ↑ Gold J., Holman D., & Thorpe R. (2002). The role of argument analysis and story telling in facilitating critical thinking. Management Learning, 33(3), 371-388. doi:10.1177/1350507602333005
  40. ↑ Demir, B., & İsleyen, T. (2015). The effects of argumentation based science learning approach on creative thinking skills of students. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(1), 49-82.
  41. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  42. ↑ Chandler, S. & Dedman, D.E. (2012). Writing a Literature Review: An Essential Component of Critical Thinking. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 17. 160-165.
  43. ↑ Al-Faoury, O.H., & Khwaileh, F. (2014). The Effect of Teaching CoRT Program No. (4) Entitles “Creativity” on the Gifted Learners’ Writing in Ein El-Basha Center for Gifted Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2249-2257. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.11.2249-2257.
  44. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  45. ↑ Al-Faoury, O.H., & Khwaileh, F. (2014). The Effect of Teaching CoRT Program No. (4) Entitles “Creativity” on the Gifted Learners’ Writing in Ein El-Basha Center for Gifted Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2249-2257. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.11.2249-2257.
  46. ↑ Al-Faoury, O.H., & Khwaileh, F. (2014). The Effect of Teaching CoRT Program No. (4) Entitles “Creativity” on the Gifted Learners’ Writing in Ein El-Basha Center for Gifted Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2249-2257. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.11.2249-2257.
  47. ↑ Al-Faoury, O.H., & Khwaileh, F. (2014). The Effect of Teaching CoRT Program No. (4) Entitles “Creativity” on the Gifted Learners’ Writing in Ein El-Basha Center for Gifted Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2249-2257. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.11.2249-2257.
  48. ↑ Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B.Z. (1995). Mediated Learning Experience and Psychological Tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s Perspective in a Study of Student Learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-75.
  49. ↑ Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B.Z. (1995). Mediated Learning Experience and Psychological Tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s Perspective in a Study of Student Learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-75.
  50. ↑ Presseisen, B.Z. & Kozulin, A. (1992). Mediated Learning – The Contributions of Vygotsky and Feuerstein in Theory and Practice.
  51. ↑ Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B.Z. (1995). Mediated Learning Experience and Psychological Tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s Perspective in a Study of Student Learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-75.
  52. ↑ Schuler, G. (1974). The Effectiveness of the Productive Thinking Program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED103479.
  53. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  54. ↑ Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
  55. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
  56. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
  57. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
  58. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
  59. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402512.
  60. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402512.
  61. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402512.
  62. ↑ Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402512.
  63. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  64. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  65. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  66. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  67. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  68. ↑ Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
  69. ↑ Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
  70. ↑ Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
  71. ↑ Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
  72. ↑ Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
  73. ↑ Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958
  74. ↑ Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958
  75. ↑ Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958
  76. ↑ Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958
  77. ↑ Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Creative and critical thinking through academic controversy. The American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 40-53. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/1306753602
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Cognition_and_Instruction/Argumentation_and_Critical_Thinking&oldid=4241752"