=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3769/paper7
|storemode=property
|title=Modelling Natural Argumentation in Education: Bridging Traditional Frameworks and Modern Multimodal Approaches
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3769/paper7.pdf
|volume=Vol-3769
|authors=Loris Isabettini
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cmna/Isabettini24
}}
==Modelling Natural Argumentation in Education: Bridging Traditional Frameworks and Modern Multimodal Approaches==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3769/paper7.pdf
Modelling natural argumentation in education: Bridging
traditional frameworks and modern multi-modal
approaches
Loris Isabettini
University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Ave, Windsor, Canada
Abstract
This paper explores the integration of multi-modal argumentation in educational contexts,
drawing on traditional argumentation theories and contemporary methods to create a more inclusive
and engaging framework. By incorporating verbal, visual, auditory, and experiential elements, the
study aims to bridge the gap between classical argumentative structures and the diverse, real-world
ways students and educators interact with arguments. Using both qualitative and quantitative
approaches, the research highlights the importance of adapting argumentative practices to better suit
modern educational needs. This study also examines the potential of computational tools in enhancing
argument analysis, ultimately contributing to the development of more flexible and effective
argumentation models across various educational settings.
Keywords
multi-modal argumentation, educational contexts, qualitative and quantitative approaches,
computational tools in argument analysis1
1. Introduction
The modelling of “natural” argumentation, which encompasses the diverse forms and practices
people use to present and evaluate arguments in educational contexts, is a critical area of study
within argumentation theory. Natural argumentation in education extends beyond purely logical
or structured arguments found in formal debates, reflecting the nuanced, dynamic, and often
multi-modal ways in which students and educators communicate. This includes the use of visual
aids, multimedia, rhetorical devices, and emotional appeals to influence and persuade learners
(Schwarz & Baker, 2017). Understanding natural argumentation in education is crucial for
gaining insights into how students reason and communicate in real-world settings.
The significance of modelling natural argumentation in education lies in its ability to bridge
the gap between traditional argumentation frameworks and the diverse, context-dependent ways
CMNA'24: 24th Edition of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, September 17, 2024, Hagen, Germany
isabett@uwindsor.ca (L. Isabettini)
0000-0002-9366-4863 (L. Isabettini)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
arguments are made and understood in practice. The integration of computational argumentation
has further expanded the scope and applicability of natural argumentation models in education.
Computational techniques, such as argumentation mining and automated reasoning, enable the
analysis and generation of arguments on a scale and level of detail that was previously
unattainable (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). These technologies facilitate the
development of tools that can assist in tasks ranging from developing critical thinking skills to
enhancing classroom discussions and collaborative learning (Osborne, 2005).
Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, my research highlights the importance of
multi-modal elements—such as visual and auditory aids—in improving the clarity and
effectiveness of arguments. The proposed findings will contribute to developing more robust
argumentative frameworks applicable across diverse educational settings, offering valuable
insights for advancing argumentation theory and its practical applications in pedagogy. I explore
the interplay between academic and general argumentation practices, identifying unique features
and commonalities that can inform more robust and flexible models. By leveraging both
classical argumentation theories and modern multi-modal approaches, this research aims to
advance argumentation theory and its practical applications in educational contexts.
2. Multi-modal argumentation: A brief synopsis
Michael Gilbert’s (1994) concept of multi-modal argumentation expands traditional frameworks
by incorporating verbal, visual, auditory, and non-sensory modes, acknowledging that human
cognition involves emotions, intuition, and sensory experiences alongside logical reasoning.
This approach addresses the limitations of purely verbal and logical argumentation by enabling
communication through diverse modes, making arguments more accessible and engaging. For
instance, visual elements like infographics and auditory cues such as tone of voice can
effectively convey complex ideas and evoke emotional responses, thereby enhancing the
persuasive power of arguments. Similarly, Leo Groarke’s (2015) analysis of multimodal
argumentation (sans the hyphen) in political cartoons, which strategically blends visual and
verbal elements to influence public perception, further supports the relevance of multi-modal
strategies in educational settings. By integrating these approaches, educators can create more
inclusive learning environments catering to diverse cognitive styles, enhancing students’ ability
to assess and craft persuasive arguments across various media critically.
3. Overview of key research in the area of argumentative practices in
education
Research on argumentative practices in education has evolved significantly, underscoring the
importance of argumentation in fostering critical thinking, enhancing communication skills, and
promoting deeper understanding among students. Key studies by scholars such as Deanna
Kuhn, Richard Andrews, and Paul Stapleton have emphasized the role of argumentation in
developing students’ reasoning abilities and preparing them for active participation in
democratic society. Kuhn’s work focuses on the developmental aspects of argumentative
reasoning, showing that engaging students in argumentative discourse from an early age
significantly enhances their cognitive and metacognitive skills. Her research demonstrates that
students who participate in structured argumentative activities show improved abilities to
construct, analyze, and evaluate arguments. Andrews has revealed that incorporating
argumentative practices into subjects like science, history, and language arts leads to better
learning outcomes and a more holistic educational experience. Stapleton’s research highlights
the practical applications of argumentation in the classroom, emphasizing the use of debate,
peer review, and collaborative learning as effective strategies for promoting argumentative skills
(Kuhn, 2010; Andrews, 2005; Stapleton, 2010).
Despite significant progress in understanding argumentative practices in education, several
gaps remain. One notable gap is the lack of comprehensive models that integrate multi-modal
argumentation within educational contexts. While traditional argumentation models primarily
focus on verbal and written discourse, there is a growing recognition of the importance of
incorporating visual, auditory, and experiential elements to reflect the diverse ways students
engage with and understand arguments. Rapanta and Macagno (2016) discuss the need for more
systematic discussions between argumentation theory and educational practice to address this
gap. Additionally, more research is needed on the impact of computational tools in supporting
argumentative practices in education. While some studies have begun to explore the potential of
technologies such as argumentation mining and automated feedback systems (see Sadler, 2006),
more work is needed to understand their effectiveness and how they can be best integrated into
educational settings.
The significance of this study within the context of the Workshop on Computational Models
of Natural Argument (CMNA) lies in its potential to bridge the gap between traditional and
modern approaches to argumentation in education. By focusing on the specialist education
domain, my work aims to develop comprehensive models incorporating multi-modal elements
and leveraging computational tools to enhance argumentative practices.
4. Research objectives and contributions
1. Identify and Analyze Domain-Specific Features:
• Examine the use of Socratic dialogue in classrooms, which facilitates critical thinking
by encouraging students to ask and answer questions that stimulate deeper
understanding. Compare this with structured argumentation schemes like the Toulmin
model (1958) to see how each approach facilitates learning.
2. Compare Educational Argumentation with Other Domains:
• Investigate how the use of evidence in science classrooms compares to its use in legal
education. In both cases, students learn to construct and evaluate arguments based on
empirical data, but the contexts and applications differ significantly. Understanding
these differences and similarities can inform better teaching practices in both domains
(Osborne, 2005; Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007).
3. Inform Broader Argumentation Models:
• Use insights from analyzing debate formats in high school education to inform the
development of argumentation models that can be applied in public policy discussions.
For instance, the structured format of debates in education could be adapted to create
more effective public forums for policy deliberation.
4. Integrate Classical and Modern Approaches:
• Analyze how traditional rhetoric, such as Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos, can be
integrated with modern multi-modal elements like visual aids and digital media used in
educational settings. Develop an approach combining these classical rhetorical
strategies with contemporary practices to enhance argumentation in academic and
professional contexts.
To gain a deep understanding of how arguments are made and understood in educational
settings, the study will collect and analyze data from various sources, including classroom
discussions, debates, written assignments, and multimedia presentations. Through content
analysis, key elements such as dialogue patterns, rhetorical devices, and linguistic cues will be
identified. Interviews with educators and students will provide further insights into their
experiences and perceptions, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of argumentative
practices.
The study also includes a comparative analysis of argumentation in different domains, using
computational tools to analyze large datasets of discourse. These tools will help identify patterns
and trends, ensuring that the findings are both theoretically sound and practically relevant. The
goal is to develop a comprehensive model that captures argumentation's dynamic and multi-
faceted nature in education while being adaptable to various educational contexts. Throughout
this process, the emphasis will be on understanding the lived experiences of students and
educators rather than imposing a rigid analytical structure. By staying open to the complexities
and subtleties of argumentative practices, this approach aims to create a framework that is both
inclusive and reflective of the diverse ways in which people engage with arguments.
5. Justification for the chosen approach
The mixed-methods approach captures the complexity of natural argumentation in education.
Qualitative methods provide deep, contextual understanding, while quantitative methods offer
rigour and generalizability; the former uncovers nuances often missed by the latter. Through
content analysis and interviews, the study explores the subtleties of dialogue, rhetorical
strategies, and emotions in educational arguments. Computational tools leverage data analysis to
identify patterns and trends, ensuring findings are theoretically sound and empirically robust.
Combining classical theories with modern computational techniques bridges traditional and
contemporary approaches, making the research comprehensive and relevant. The reason for
comparing Socratic dialogue with the Toulmin model, for instance, lies in understanding how
different traditional frameworks facilitate learning and argumentation in educational settings.
Socratic dialogue encourages interactive and reflective thinking, whereas the Toulmin model
provides a structured approach to constructing arguments.
6. Description of computational models and frameworks used
Several computational models and frameworks are employed to analyze and simulate
argumentative practices. Argumentation mining tools, like Araucaria and OVA+, automatically
identify and extract argumentative structures from data (Thimm & Villata, 2017). Automated
reasoning systems, such as Carneades and Rationale, simulate argumentation scenarios and
evaluate argumentative strategies (van Gijzel & Prakken, 2012). Multi-modal analysis
frameworks integrate visual, auditory, and textual elements of arguments. Tools like Kress and
van Leeuwen’s Grammar of Visual Design help us understand how visual elements contribute to
argument persuasiveness (El Baff et al., 2019). Comparative analysis software, like NVivo and
MAXQDA, supports qualitative comparative analysis, facilitating systematic comparison across
domains (Gkotsis & Karacapilidis, 2012). These tools aid in coding, categorizing, and
identifying commonalities and differences in argumentative features.
7. Future directions
This study highlights the potential of integrating multi-modal elements into argumentation
models to enhance educational practices. While the methods employed offer valuable insights,
the study’s scope is limited by its focus on specific educational settings, which may not fully
capture the diversity of argumentative practices across different institutions and cultures. The
reliance on qualitative analysis may also limit the generalizability of findings, and the
computational tools used, though innovative, require further validation.
Future research should broaden the data collection to include more diverse educational
contexts and incorporate extensive quantitative data to strengthen empirical support.
Additionally, refining and validating computational tools for argumentation mining and analysis
is essential, particularly in light of discussions at recent Intelligent Learning Society (ILS)
meetings, which emphasize the role of AI and adaptive learning technologies in education.
Incorporating these emerging technologies will be crucial for advancing argumentation practices
in a rapidly evolving educational landscape.
In conclusion, the integration of multi-modal elements into argumentation models represents
a significant advancement in making arguments more accessible, engaging, and effective. As
research in this area progresses, expanding the scope, validating tools, and embracing new
technologies will be essential to preparing students for the complex and diverse discourse of
contemporary society.
References
1. Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text & Talk, 25(1),
107-127. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.107
2. El Baff, R., Wachsmuth, H., Al Khatib, K., Stede, M., & Stein, B. (2019). Computational
argumentation synthesis as a language modeling task. In K. van Deemter, C. Lin, & H.
Takamura (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language
Generation (pp. 54-64). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/
10.18653/v1/W19-8607
3. Gilbert, Michael A. (1994). Multi-modal argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences,
24(2), 159-177.
4. Gkotsis, G., & Karacapilidis, N. (2012). A computational model for the identification and
assessment of structural similarities in argumentative discourses. Journal of Intelligent
Information Systems, 39, 789 - 811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-012-0212-9
5. Groarke, Leo. (2015). Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it
matter?. Argumentation, 29, 133-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0
6. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An
overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science
education. 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
7. Kuhn, D. (2010). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A
response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96(5), 808-813. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sce.21000
8. Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In Boersma, K., Goedhart,
M., de Jong, O., Eijkelhof, H. (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education.
367-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_29
9. Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2016). Argumentation methods in educational contexts:
Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79,
142-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJER.2016.03.006
10. Sadler, T. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10972-006-9025-4
11. Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2016). Argumentation theory for education. In B. B.
Schwarz & M. J. Baker (Eds.), Dialogue, Argumentation and education: History, theory
and practice. Cambridge University Press. 56-92.
12. Stapleton, P. (2010). Can argumentation be taught in school? Resonance, 26(2), 129-132.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-020-1110-z
13. Thimm, M., & Villata, S. (2017). The first international competition on computational
models of argumentation: Results and analysis. Artif. Intell., 252, 267-294. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.artint.2017.08.006
14. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
15. van Gijzel, B., & Prakken, H. (2012). Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via
the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument Comput., 3, 21-47. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2012.661766