Arguing to learn

Many people think that arguing interferes with learning, and that’s true for a certain type of oppositional argument that is increasingly prevalent in our media culture. Tannen (1998) analyzed the aggressive types of argument that are frequently seen on talk shows and in the political sphere, where representatives of two opposed viewpoints spout talking points at each other. In these forms of argument, the goal is not to work together toward a common position, but simply to score points. All teachers and parents have seen children engaged in this type of argumentation, and most would probably agree that it has little to contribute to education. The learning sciences is studying a different kind of argumentation, which we call collaborative argumentation. For example, collaborative argumentation plays a central role in science; science advances not by the accumulation of facts, but by debate and argumentation (Osborne, 2010). Even when two scientists disagree, they still share the common values of science and both of them are interested in achieving the same goals (determining what claim should be upheld). Argumentation in science should not be primarily oppositional and aggressive; it is a form of collaborative discussion in which both parties are working together to resolve an issue, and in which both scientists aim to reach agreement. Engagement in collaborative argumentation can help students learn to think critically and independently about important issues and contested values. Before students can successfully engage in collaborative argumentation, they must overcome the traditional and deep-seated opposition between reason and emotion (Baker, Andriessen, & Järvelä, 2013; Picard et al., 2004), stop being aggressively opposed to others, and instead orient their positive motivations and emotions toward the question being discussed and others’ views on it.