Last night we held our second netcast for #QuestionTheWeb. We were joined by Dr. Julie Coiro to discuss critical evaluation and argumentation. If you want to subscribe to the shows you can follow me on YouTube or add the RSS feed to your podcast player.
Julie began the show by discussing the cultural differences in argumentative writing. Julie has been collaborating with Carita Killi from Finland. It was a fascinating discussion of how culture influences meaning and the impossibility of separating the teaching of credibility from argumentation.
Meaning and Culture
We discussed how the closest word to argumentation in Finnish translates to ponder. In America it is much more about winning the argument and persuading. In Finland argumentative writing is more about presenting both sides of the argument so your audience will be better prepared to make a decision in the future.
Credibility and Argumentation
We also discussed credibility and argumentation. Dr. Coiro suggested they cannot be separated. I agree. In fact I have been arguing argumentation was the best method to teach critical evaluation well before the Common Core. My position began after seeing Dr. Nussbaum present a paper at AERA on Argumentative Vee Diagrams.
It seemed in all our work on Online Research Comprehension was really argumentative discourse in networked spaces.
Julie then shared some amazing tools they have been developing to teach students to look at perspective. They are doing in very subtle ways I plan to steal. Instead of just being pro or con they ask questions like, “How would a doctor read this site? An environmentalist?”