Administración de Proyectos Específicos (APE)

As discussed, the epistemological stance of a person develops over time and only sometimes reaches the evaluativist level, which is conducive to productive argumentation. But what is known about the development of argumentation skills themselves?

Berkowitz and Gibbs (1985) compared the extent of transactive moves used in different age groups (ages between 6 and 20 years) during moral conflict discussions. Transactive discussion moves are defined as moves that involve the reasoning on the reasoning of others. They may be further subdivided into representational transacts, which, by and large, only re-present the reasoning of others (e.g., paraphrasing), and

operational transacts, which significantly transform the reasoning of others (e.g.,

counter-arguing). Particularly operational transacts may be considered as indicators for quality discussions and associated with a high skill level in argumentation. The study showed that the amount of transactive moves grows as a function of age. In the group with the youngest participants (6–8 years), transactive moves were almost completely absent. The biggest leap was observed from the age group 12–14 to the age group 15–17, which suggests that the period of early to middle adolescence is critical in the development of argumentation skills. Another study reported by Berkowitz and Gibbs (1985) found that the formal operational stage of Piaget’s

theory of cognitive development (1972) is strongly associated with transactive discussion. The formal operational stage is characterized by logical and abstract forms of thinking, including deductive and hypothetical reasoning, which may be seen as prerequisites for proper argumentation. The transition to the formal operational stage is supposed to happen between adolescence and adulthood, that is, exactly at the time when the biggest increase in transactive talk was observed in the first Berkowitz and Gibbs (1985) study reported here.

Kuhn (1991) locates the main period of argumentation skill development slightly earlier on the timeline. The study originally reported in Kuhn (1991) did not yield any significant differences between the youngest age group (9th grade, i.e., ages ranging between 14 and 15) and older age groups. However, a previous study of Kuhn and colleagues (1988), which investigated similar abilities (production of evidence and counterarguments, evaluation of evidence) in a similar, yet somewhat simpler setting, showed a major improvement occurring just before that age, across the preadolescence age and the early adolescence age. From then on, the educational level seems to be the main factor. Only the group of young adults who attended college for several years displayed further performance improvements.

Stein and Miller (1993) judge the argumentation skills of children even more favorably than Kuhn (1991) and Berkowitz and Gibbs (1985). They found that children at the age of seven are already able to display argumentation skills that are in many respects similar to the ones of college students (e.g., in terms of relevance, coherence, and logic). Children in this age group were already able to identify and use basic argument components to justify and evaluate positions. Stein and Miller (1993) identified the value system children and adults hold as an important differentiating factor. For instance, the dilemma problem used in their study forced a decision between two opposing options: “sticking to an agreement” versus “not threatening the friendship.” While most adults valued the former option more, the majority of children valued the latter option more. This was not only visible in the initially chosen position but also in how participants evaluated potential arguments of both sides. Stein and Miller (1993) attribute previous results, which purport that children’s arguments are personalized and illogical, to problematic materials and research methods. In particular, they criticize that the used materials have often been developed for adults rather than for children. Children may have not been able to display competent argumentation skills because they were simply lacking appropriate background knowledge and understanding of the domain under discussion. Furthermore, the quality of argumentation invoked may strongly depend on situational demands. If no critical and probing questions are being asked, a person

may assume that her claims have been accepted and refrain from presenting further or better support. Finally, it is important to consider the specific goals and agenda a person pursues in an argument. If a person approaches a discussion in a conflicting rather than a cooperative way (i.e., trying to win at any costs), the quality of the used arguments may suffer. In summary, there is a difference between the arguments a person actually produces and the arguments a person is principally able to produce. Stein and Miller (1993) see the circumstantial conditions of many previous studies as insufficient to allow children to display the real extent of their argumentation skills.

Felton and Kuhn (2001) compared the discourse strategies of adults and adolescents. As a theoretical framework they used Walton’s model of a critical discussion (2008; see also section 1.7). In this type of dialogue, discussants try to elicit commitments from fellow discussants and build their own argumentation upon these commitments. That is, if a discussion partner has committed to some statements and one can derive one’s own conclusions from these accepted statements, then the discussion partner is also committed to accept these conclusions, if obeying the norms of reasonableness. From this observation, two discourse goals can be derived: (1) getting the partner to concede to premises that are central to one’s own argumentation, and (2) identifying and challenging questionable premises (implicit or explicit) in the partner’s argumentation. Different discourse strategies may be utilized to realize these goals. The development of argumentive discourse skills therefore involves two interrelated processes: (1) developing an understanding of the goals involved in argumentative discourse, and (2) developing strategies to effectively achieve these discourse goals. In a study, Felton and Kuhn (2001) found that adults use more powerful argumentative strategies than adolescents. For instance, adults used more counterargument moves. They also pursued effective multi-turn strategies more frequently, such as eliciting, in a targeted way, commitments from the discussion partner that can be used to attack and undercut the partner’s position. Some evidence also indicated that adults have a better understanding of discourse goals. Felton and Kuhn (2001) compared the participants’ behavior between agreeing and disagreeing dialogues. The initial situation of a disagreeing dialogues are opposing positions, while in an agreeing dialogue, the discussing partners share the same position. While adolescents displayed similar behavioral patterns in both types of dialogues, adults apparently adopted discourse goals particularly suitable for the current type of dialogue. In particular, in agreeing dialogues, adults did not use a strategy of weakening and undercutting the partner’s argumentation, which they exhibited in disagreeing dialogues.

In summary, the empirical studies come to different results with respect to the main period of argumentation skill development. Stein and Miller (1993) attest that children at the age of seven already have argumentation skills that are in many respects comparable to the ones of college students. Kuhn et al. (1988) identifies the period from preadolescence to the early adolescence as critical in the development of argumentation skills. Berkowitz and Gibbs (1985) conclude that major improvements occur in early to middle adolescence. The results of Felton and Kuhn (2001) indicate a developmental leap between adolescence and adulthood. To reconcile these results, it is instructive to look at the specific settings and methods used. The studies essentially evaluated different facets of argumentation. The results presented by Stein and Miller (1993) show that young children are already able to produce relevant, coherent, and logical arguments. Yet, the used dilemma problem required argumentation of a rather simple kind, restricted to justificatory reasons for a preferred action (“I’m in favor of action X because …”). Kuhn et al. (1988) used much more demanding problems involving arguments relating to causal claims, which are structurally more complex (“I believe that X causes Y because …”). The standards to judge the quality of arguments were based on a scientifically oriented model of argumentation and thus much more stringent. Such a model requires a proper understanding of the difference between theory and data and the coordination between elements at these two levels. Berkowitz and Gibbs (1985) evaluated argumentation skills in a discussion setting, which again is more demanding in other respects, since discussants must manage multiple tasks at once. In particular, they must advance their own argumentation, parry off critiques of others, follow others’ argumentation, and offer well-reasoned critiques. Finally, Felton and Kuhn (2001) focused on one particularly advanced aspect of argumentative discussions, namely the use of strategic behavior, which involves selecting and implementing own discourse strategies as well as recognizing strategic moves of others.

Generally, as noted in Kuhn (1991), it unrealistic to expect that a single point in time can be identified at which a previous absent skill comes suddenly into existence. Rather, argumentation skills develop gradually, on a continuum from the most rudimentary forms to mature and fully functional argumentation skills. At the low end, argumentation skills exist mostly in implicit form and only become visible in environments that provide a high degree of guidance and support. As development proceeds, the amount of external support required to make competent use of argumentation skills continually declines. The learner becomes increasingly autonomous in her performance. At the high end, the learner can act fully autonomously, without external support, and display the skills of argument in an

explicit and consistent manner. Appropriate educational approaches may be employed to speed up the developmental process and to pave the way to the higher levels of the developmental continuum. Natural maturation processes, e.g., triggered through informal encounters of argumentative practices in everyday situations, may constitute an insufficient condition for reaching these higher levels and additional educational support may be required. This is supported by findings suggesting that college education makes a difference in terms of argumentation skills of adults (Kuhn et al. 1988) (albeit even highly educated people still often struggle with basic critical thinking and sound reasoning skills, cf. Kahneman 2011).