From Online Role-Play to Written Argumentation: Using Blended Learning in Lessons on Social Issues

Argumentation in the Study of Social Issues

Argumentation can be characterized as verbal, social, and rational interaction, aimed at justifying or disproving a given standpoint. When one is studying social issues, argumentation can be seen to have a two-fold character: it is learning to debate, i.e. learning argumentation skills in order to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and also learning from debate, i.e. learning content through an argumentative debate (see Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003; von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008). Learning to debate is valuable when, for example, teachers discuss intoxicant issues with young people. On the other hand, learning from debate may help students to achieve a deeper understanding of social problems (see Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003).

Logical structures are important, since they embody the characteristics of good argumentation, that is, argumentation that includes at least a claim and grounds (see Toulmin, 1958). In informal reasoning, evidence for a claim is generated and evaluated in cases where information is unclear or problems are ill-structured (Means & Voss, 1996). In everyday argumentation, in addition to knowledge, people also utilize values when making decisions (Kolstø, 2006). Professionals working with adolescents often have to deal with ill-structured problems. The solutions to these are frequently unpredictable, and contain many alternatives (Jonassen, 1997). This means that logical models of argumentation alone are not enough; indeed, they may be unsuitable in a good deal of informal everyday reasoning.