Undergraduates and the development of argumentMar.2007,Volume4,No.3(SerialNo.28)US-ChinaEducationReview,ISSN1548-6613,USAUndergraduatesandthedevelopmentofargumentNazimfCentreforEducationalStudies,UniversityofHull,Hull,HU67RX,England)Abstract:Thisarticleemphasizestheneedtoencourageundergraduatestudentstodeveloparguments,whichinvolvesenhancingtheiranalyticalskillsandcapacityforcriticalthinking,acrossdisciplinesregardlessofleve1.Itarguesthattheseskills,requiredbytheQualityAssuranceAgencys(QAA)benchmarks,aredevelopednotbyinstructionbutbyengagingwiththephilosophicprocessthatleadstothedeeplearning.Thisprocessoflearningisbasedonadialecticalapproach,viewingdialoguewithcolleagues,primarytextsandwrittenassignments,ascentraltodevelopinganinductiveargumentandacriticalperspective.Thisarticleproposesananalyticalframeworktoanalyzetheextenttowhichatutorisfacilitatingthedevelopmentofargument.Itsuggeststhatwhile,ifrequiredonemustprovidestudentswithexplicitguidelinesaboutthisprocess,neverthelessthispracticeisproblematicbecauseoftheinherenttensionbetweenexplicitteachinganddeeplearning,whichfacilitatestheacquisitionoftheseanalyticalskills.Keywords:analyticalskills;criticalthinking;deduction;deeplearning;developmentofargument;dialectic;explicitteaching;formativeassessment;induction;implicitteaching1.IntroductionIn2005theHigherEducationAcademy(HEA)fundedaprojecttoexaminetheproblemswiththeintroductionofargumentationtofirstyearundergraduatesacrossdifferentcurriculaintheUK.TheresearchbriefclaimedthatintroductorycoursesintheUKrarelygavesustainedattentiontowritingandargumentationdespitebeingthemainformsofassessment(Andrews&Togerson,2005).Thissplitbetweenassessmentandlearningisproblematic.particularlyastheseskillsarerequiredbytheQualityAssuranceAgencys(QAA)subjectbenchmarks.(QualityAssuranceAgency,2000)Thusitisimperativetoencourageundergraduatestoengagewithprocessofdevelopmentofargumentassoonastheystartuniversity.Thisarticleseekstoreflectuponandsharethinkingandpracticeabouthowtoencouragestudentstodevelopargumentsacrossdisciplines,particularlyineducation.Itseekstosuggestthattheteachingandlearningofargumentisafundamentallydialecticalprocessandproposesananalyticalframeworkthathelpstoillustratehowdialoguewithcolleagues,thereadingandtheprocessofwritingcanfacilitatethedevelopmentofanalyticalskills.2.Argumentv.CriticalThinkingandAnalysisv-KnowledgeBeforediscussingtheprocessofdevelopingargumentonemustdefinethetermsofanalyticalskillsandcriticalthinking,whicharenotonlycontentiousbutfrequentlyconflated.(McPeck,1987)Thispaperwouldliketoarguethattheseprocessesaredistinctandthatwhileconstructionofargumentisbasedonanalysis,criticalthinkingisbasedonknowledge.Moreover,analysisisbasedoninductionandcriticalthinkingondeduction.NazWasim,Ph.D.,lecturerattheCentreforEducationalStudies,UniversityofHull;researchfields:theoryofteachingandlearning,socialpocyandeducationpoHcandtheissuesoflearningintheurbancontext.31UndergraduatesandthedevelopmentofargumentPeckseescriticalthinkingbasedonknowledgeanddisciplinespecific.(Peck,1990;Andrews,1999;Walker&Finne1999;Bailin,nodate)IncontrasttheinformallogicandcriticalthinkingmovementdevelopedintheUSseethemasgeneralthinkingskillsthatcanbetheorizedwithoutreferencetoaparticulardisciplineandcanbetaught.Themovementattemptstomaketheprocessexplicitandisconcernedwithteachingstudentsthesehigherorderskillsthroughexplicitinstruction.(Paul,1994;Resnick,1989;Bean,1996;Paul,Binker&Weil,1990)Thestudyskillsapproachhasbuiltonthisapproach;providingexplicitguidelinesaboutdevelopingtheseskillsunrelatedtospecificdisciplines.Itconcentratesonassessingargumentswithoutdistinguishingbetweenthetwoprocessesofanalysisandcriticalthinking.(VanDenBrinkBudgen,2000;Carey,2000;Reinard,1991;Cottrell,2005;Weston,1992)Thisarticledistancesitselffromtheinformallogicapproach,andfindsitselfmoreinthetraditionofGreekrhetoric,particularlywithinPlatosdialecticalmethod.(Andrews,1995;Mitchell,1994)Moreover,itdrawsonconceptsfromformallogiceschewedbytheinformallogicmovement,toclarifyconceptsofargumentsandcriticalthinkingusingdeductionandinduction.(Fisher,2004;Memering,2002;Carey,2000;Reinard,1991)ThusitisclosertoSalmon,aformallogicianwhoexplicitlyfocusesoninduction;dealingwithitbeforedeductionunlikemostformallogicianswhofavorthelatterbecausetheirconclusionscanbeeasilyevaluatedasvalidorinvalid.(Salmon,1989)ItisalsoquiteclosetoToulmin,whoseesargumentationasdevelopingacase,whichcanalsobeseenasaninductiveargument(Toulmin,1958).3.Deductionv.InductionThedifferencebetweenanalysisandcriticalthinkingcanbeunderstoodbylinkingthemtotheprocessesofinductiveanddeductivelogic.Analysisisaninductiveprocesswhichmovesfromthespecifictothegeneral;whereascriticalthinkingisadeductiveprocesswhichmovesfromthegeneraltothespecific.Inmostsimpletermsdeductionsignifiesamovefromthegeneraltothespecific,whereasinduction,specificallyinductivegeneralizatio