Argumentation discourse analysis on collaborative critical discussion with multiple participants

Abstract

Purpose: Stephen Toulmin's theory of argument (1958/2003) has been widely used in research and practice in various fields including education. This paper revisits Toulmin's monological model in light of the more comprehensive dialogical argumentation framework of Douglas Walton (1989/2008). It explores methods of argumentation discourse analysis on collaborative critical discussion with multiple participants. Method: Eighteen Hong Kong senior secondary school students were randomly placed into stratified groups of six to participate in 25-minute long discussions. A total of 276 turns of conversation and 1,116 idea units were identified based on Halliday's (1985) functional grammar with modification for Chinese. Idea units formulating the process of interaction were analyzed using the NVivo software to illustrate specific methods of argumentation discourse analysis. Results: Toulmin's monological model focuses on how the link among components of an argument contributes to its conclusion. Walton's dialogical framework focuses on how the interaction between proponents, who provide presumptive justification to support their conclusion, and opponents, who refute the justification and conclusion in a defensible manner, contributes to dispute resolution. Collaborative critical discussion can be better analyzed, evaluated, and comprehended with the revisited Toulmin model within Walton's framework. The approach is also compared with Anderson and Reznitskaya's (2002) idea of argument schema. Conclusions: The new argumentative discourse analysis provides insight into thinking and learning.