Unit Overview: Argumentation


Similar data literacy processes – formulating appropriate data-based questions, employing suitable data, tools and representations to answer them, and developing and evaluating defensible data-based arguments - are addressed in the national K-12 standards for all four subject areas included in the TWD unit. They also figure prominently in each of the TWD modules. Data-based argumentation, in particular, is a skill addressed and evoked in each of these. When we originally conceived of the TWD unit, we imagined that students would be addressing similar processes in the context of the different subject areas, and to a large extent they are. However, as we looked more closely at data-based argumentation across the modules, we came to realize that the disciplines approach such processes from fundamentally different perspectives. In particular,

It also seems to be the case that in real-world media reporting on important issues, these divergent approaches are often merged and/or confused, which can make it difficult to make informed decisions. It is therefore important that TWD teachers be aware of the multiple approaches to argumentation and foreground the approach taken in their disciplines as they teach their units. These approaches are described in more depth below.

 

Social Studies

In Social Studies, all arguments are context dependent; that is, all arguments must be situated in social, cultural, geographical, and historical understandings.

In the TWD project, the Social Studies module is the first module for exactly this reason: to provide a real-world context. Students make a first attempt at analyzing water use and population data in order to come to a decision about dividing the water in the Tigris-Euphrates watershed between Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. They argue the case for each of the three countries based on statistical data and historical and geographic information. Students begin with the arguments each country has advanced in the real world.

Turkey, for example, bases its claims on the sovereignty principle. Turkey argues that the rivers are transboundary, meaning that it has control over the rivers while they are in Turkey, just like other countries have control over their natural resources such as oil or coal. Iraq, which is last in the chain of countries through which the rivers flow, argues for the historical principle, meaning that it has been using the water from the Tigris and Euphrates for thousands of years. Iraq argues that the Tigris and Euphrates are international rivers, and Turkey should not be able to decide on its own how much water from the Tigris and Euphrates it will let flow into Syria and Iraq. Syria, which occupies the middle position, argues the historical principle with regard to Turkey but in regard Iraq and its own dams and irrigation projects sometimes argues for sovereignty.

Most students will not arrive at a satisfactory solution to the issue (that will come in the Mathematics module), but that is not the point. In fact, it is more important that students formulate an answer to the main question that, as Lockwood (1996) suggests,

seems best supported by relevant data […] because we assume that well-informed people may continue to disagree on the best answer. What is important is that the disagreements entail increasingly sophisticated debates about the quality and relevance of evidence as well as the logic employed in coming to a particular conclusion.

 

Mathematics

In Mathematics, argumentation is proof of absolute truth.

Mathematical argumentation is the investigation of whether a mathematical statement is true based on evidence. This includes constructing conjectures and articulating and defending these conjectures through explanation and justification. While this view is consistent with argumentation in Social Studies, Mathematics argumentation abstracts from real-world contexts to more general understandings that transcend such real-world contexts.

In the TWD project, the Mathematics module uses the real-world context provided by Social Studies in two ways: first, as a context to motivate the learning of proportional reasoning; and second, as an application of using proportional reasoning in argumentation. However, in order to support the shift to abstract mathematical reasoning, the learning of proportional reasoning uses a multiplicity of contexts, each of which are designed to highlight the abstract mathematical notion of creating proportional measures (Lamon, 1994).

While some of these contexts are directly related to water distribution, the situations were simplified to draw attention to the key aspects of proportional reasoning. For instance, in the first activity in Mathematics class, students are divided into unequal sized groups, and each group receives unequal amounts of tokens. Students are asked to determine if their group received a “fair share” of tokens. Through this activity, students come to realize the importance of a measure of fairness that can take into account both the number of students and the number of tokens. This notion of “fairness” becomes the basis for investigating proportional reasoning in a variety of contexts (including water distribution, salinity, and corn production, to name a few).

 

As students come to a more formal understanding of proportional reasoning, and in particular, per capita measures, they employ these measures in data-based argumentation about the real-world context introduced in Social Studies: water distribution in the Middle East.

The Mathematics module also addresses argumentation itself as a formal structure. Towards the end of the module, students are introduced to a three-step process for evaluating data-based arguments and asked to apply the process in evaluating a set of arguments. This methodology will be reintroduced in the English Language Arts module. 

Three Important Steps for Evaluating an Argument

  1. Is the argument factual?
  2. Does the argument use relevant data?
  3. Does the evidence support the conclusion?

 

Science

In Science, argumentation is a search for the most parsimonious explanation.

The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1995) emphasize the importance of developing students’ abilities to understand evidence, use models, and make explanations using scientific evidence and concepts. In the TWD Science module, argumentation is approached from this perspective through a series of lessons that begin with the module centered on particular explanations of observed phenomena. Small groups of students develop and/or test explanations through reference to data and defend them in a whole-class activity during which the teacher leads the students to a correct resolution.  Students then reinforce and expand their use of argument as explanation as they study water concerns in the United States.

The Science unit begins by having students use GIS data (representing a variety of climate data) to develop and defend arguments as to where it is raining the most in the Tigris-Euphrates watershed. The structure of this two-day lesson – data exploration, development/evaluation of explanations, whole class sharing, resolution – is repeated in the two other two-day lessons in this module. In the first of these, students explore data from three sources -- a data table, a bar graph, and a map -- to find links between irrigation and soil salinity. In the second, they review their own data from a hands-on experiment to explore the effects of salinity on the growth of plants.

In the last section of the Science module, students conduct research on United States watersheds. They investigate problems that include water scarcity, water pollution, and invasive species. Through comparisons with what they learned about the Middle East, they build an understanding of associated causes and develop arguments for possible solutions. These initial scientific arguments form the basis for the final arguments (written and oral) developed in English Language Arts.

 

English Language Arts

In English Language Arts, argumentation explores a horizon of possibilities.

In English Language Arts, argumentation is a means to uncovering the “horizon of possibilities” (Langer, 2000) inherent in texts; that is, in developing defensible interpretations of literary work or being able to synthesize defensible themes across works of non-fiction. “Texts” here includes not only printed texts but also a variety of media formats. The emphasis is not on absolute truth but rather on developing understanding and an appreciation of multiple perspectives (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamaron, 2003). Whereas reasoning in Science and Mathematics usually converges on a single best explanation or proof, reasoning in English Language Arts is typically divergent and involves discovering multiple plausible explanations and defending them. In this context, argumentation is seen as a formal process for advancing plausible explanations.

In the TWD unit, the English Language Arts module brings together the varying aspects of argumentation explored in the preceding modules. It focuses on persuasive argument and on developing effective arguments concerning water problems in US watersheds and reasonable solutions to them. To develop an effective argument, students must be able to synthesize, analyze, and evaluate data to create a fair, complete, and logical argument. Students must ground their arguments in context and support their arguments with real world data. They must also represent and communicate their findings, conclusions and recommendations accurately and effectively. The primary focus, however, is formal and rhetorical.



References

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamaron, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730.

Lamon, S. J. (1994). Ratio and proportion: Cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 89-120). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Langer, J. A. (2000). Discussion as exploration: Literature and the horizon of possibilities; Report Series Number 6.3. National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. Albany, NY: University at Albany.

Lockwood, A. L. (1996). Controversial issues: The teacher’s crucial role. Social Education, 60, 28-31.
National Research Council. (1995). National Science Education Standards (NSES). Washington DC: National Academy Press.