Even contradiction-oriented argumentation scholars probably would agree that teaching of argumentation (debate, thinking) has important effects on eventual success of our students (see, for example, Bruffee, 1992; Jackson, 2002; Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Zeidler, 1997). While I welcome any attempt to improve teaching practices and outcomes (as, I'm sure, do all chalk and talk teaching advocates [see Sellnow, 2006]), Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert's (2006) underlying justification for treating field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles as key to improvement seems to me to be theoretically lacking. Although Sellnow also makes this point, she is concerned primarily about insufficient justification for Hunt et al.'s preference for Witkin's (1978) model. I agree but would suggest, further, that simply defending this model against other learning/cognitive styles still would miss point. Although there may be reasons why Witkin's system is preferable to, say, cognitive complexity or a simple measure of IQ to my mind Hunt et al.'s results reveal that learning outcomes are not hampered (or improved) primarily by student learning styles but, instead, by what we teach about (and utilize from) argumentation and debate. DEFINING ARGUMENTATION I am concerned about Hunt et al.'s conception of argumentation as and impersonal. They appear to treat argument as a product, either in O'Keefe's (1977) sense of [argument.sub.1] or in sense that an argument makes a case for a proposition in oral or written form. For example, they suggest that instruction can advantage field-independent (FI) thinkers, since argumentation production and evaluation is abstract (i.e., taught by reference to Toulmin model in lecture form) and impersonal, while disadvantaging field-dependent (FD) thinkers, who prefer to engage in discussion (pp. 158-159). This conception is also manifest in puzzling finding that the debate format was found to restrict opportunities for interpersonal communication, which is preferred mode of communication for FD thinkers (pp. 159-160). (1) Finally, Hunt et al. assert that FD students suffer in debate courses, which require critical, logical, and linear (p. 157): critical thinking tasks that require students to consider several concepts simultaneously, generate alternative solutions to complex problems, and integrate knowledge from multiple sources, may reinforce learning of FI thinkers (p. 159). In such a conception, there is little more to debate and argumentation than being able to think logically, that is, systematically evaluating relationships between premises and conclusions. This conception of argumentation is not wholly problematic. Certainly, mastery of argumentation production and evaluation must include just these skills: One must be able to reason adequately (e.g., consider and understand several concepts simultaneously) and identify and evaluate systematic relationships among arguments and standpoints, whether these relationships are formal, informal, or some combination thereof. But two aspects are troubling: (1) some of very concepts and skills that are essential to pedagogy are thought a priori to advantage one type of student; and (2) limited to particular cases, this conception ignores dialectical features of argumentation that modern theories have elaborated at length and that should be essential in debate. First, at least when viewed as a communicative activity, argumentation is not solely defined by formal concerns, such as logical relationships between premises and conclusions. This does not mean that formal concerns are irrelevant. Take, for instance, pragma-dialectical approach, which defines argumentation as a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of acceptability of a by putting forward a constellation of one or more propositions to justify this standpoint (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2002, p. …
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Jul 31, 2011
Emad M Al-Salameh 
