In an illustrative argument activity (Kuhn & Udell, unpublished), academically at-risk middle-school students engage in a ten-week debate activity focused on the topic of capital punishment. Based on their initial pro v. con opinions, students are assigned to a 4-6 person team who share their opinion and with whom they work until near the end of the project. The social goal that unites and energizes the team is preparation for a final "show-down" debate activity against a team holding the opposing opinion. Assessments preceding and following the activity are based on (a) a student's individual argument in support of a pro or con opinion, for both the capital punishment topic and a new, transfer topic, and (b) a sample of argumentive discourse between two students holding opposing opinions, again on both the capital punishment topic and a new topic. Initial results indicate significant progress in the quality of both individual argument and argumentive discourse following the activity.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (in press). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes.
GENERATING REASONS
Goals: Reasons underlie opinions. Different reasons can underlie the same opinion.
ELABORATING REASONS
Goals: Good reasons support opinions.
SUPPORTING REASONS WITH EVIDENCE
Goals: Evidence can strengthen reasons.
EVALUATING REASONS
Goals: Some reasons are better than others.
DEVELOPING REASONS INTO AN ARGUMENT
Goals: Reasons connect to one another & are building blocks of argument.
EXAMINING & EVALUATING OPPOSING-SIDE'S REASONS
Goals: Opponents have reasons too.
GENERATING COUNTERARGUMENTS TO OTHERS' REASONS
Goals: Opposing reasons can be countered: "We can fight this."
GENERATING REBUTTALS TO OTHERS' COUNTERARGUMENTS
Goals: Counterarguments can be rebutted: "We have a comeback."
CONTEMPLATING MIXED EVIDENCE
Goals: Evidence can be used to support different claims.
CONDUCTING & EVALUATING TWO-SIDED ARGUMENTS
Goals: Some arguments are stronger than others.