128 Frameworks for Thinking

Summary: Altshuller

				Relevance
				for teachers and
Purpose and structure		Some key features		learning
Main purpose(s):		Terminology:		Intended audience:
•	to provide a systematic	•	few specially-	•	designers of
	approach to practical		defined terms		instruction and
	problem-solving	•	uses vocabulary		assessment
•	has some application		of main application	•	teachers
	in management		area: technology	•	researchers
Domains addressed:		Presentation:		Contexts:
•	cognitive	•	instruction manuals	•	education
			and websites for	•	work
			enthusiasts
		•	software is available
			to aid users
Broad categories		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
covered:		•	evolutionary biology	•	prescriptive:
•	strategic management	•	natural science		teacher/text-
	of thinking	•	systemic theory		directed
•	productive thinking	•	psychology of	•	intended for
•	building understanding		problem-solving		creative application
•	information-gathering				when understood
Classification by:		Values:		Practical
•	temporal order of use	•	skills widely	illustrations
	of skills		accessible	for teachers:
			with training	•	many examples
					provided

Allen, Feezel and Kauffie’s taxonomy of concepts and critical abilities related to the evaluation of verbal arguments

Description and intended use

This classification system was created by a team of educators at the University of Wisconsin with the intention of promoting critical

Productive thinking	129

thinking (Allen, Feezel and Kauffie, 1967). It builds on Toulmin’s analysis of the field-invariant nature of the structure of argument, i.e. truth claim, supported by warrants of various kinds which relate to relevant data (Toulmin, 1958). The authors claim that their taxonomy is systematic, coherent and empirically adequate. It is meant to encompass all arguments to be found in everyday discourse and to have mutually exclusive categories. It is claimed to be a taxonomy of the thinking skills (or critical abilities) involved in constructing and analysing arguments, and is entirely cognitive in nature. Critical abilities are defined as the application of principles and standards to newly encountered situations. There are 12 critical abilities and these are listed below, with details of the concepts involved added in. It can be seen that there are up to three levels of detail within each item and that the abilities differ substantially in complexity and difficulty.

1.Distinguishing between sentences functioning as statements and sentences functioning as performatives (i.e. not calling for affirmation or denial).

2.Distinguishing arguments (which include a claim and a justification for it) from other forms of verbal discourse (such as narration and exposition).

3.Recognising the components which are related in statements (classes, individuals and attributes).

4.Recognising types of claim in arguments (attributive, membership, indicative, responsibility and comparative).

5.Recognising testimony (source statement) offered in justification.

6.Appraising testimony in terms of internal and external criteria.

7.Recognising reasons offered as justification; classifying reasons by argumentative function (data or warrant); detecting arguments in which relational statements are suppressed.

8.Recognising various patterns of reasoning; supplying appropriate warrants to relate data to claim; appraising reasons according to relevant rules of inference. The patterns listed are: sign reasoning; individual to member; member to individual; alternate; parallel case; cause–effect, effect–cause and comparative.

9.Recognising the degree of acceptability of a claim as determined by the various elements in an argument.

130Frameworks for Thinking

10.Analysing the functions of statements in complexes of interrelated arguments.

11.Detecting irrelevance in argument (in the form of dissuasions and diversions). Dissuasions are: persuasive prefaces; glittering generalisations; name calling; technical terms; and circularity. Diversions are: attacking the person or appealing to the populace, appealing to pity, to authority, to force, to ignorance, to large numbers, to humour and ridicule or to speculation.

12.Detecting misuses of language in argument (ambiguity and equivocation).

The authors also present their material in flowchart form, to show that, apart from the overall sequential process of argument recognition, analysis and evaluation, some critical processes can take place in parallel or not at all, depending on the nature of the argument as well as individual interest or preference (e.g. identifying patterns of reasoning and evaluating the authority of an external source). The flowchart suggests a sequential order of processes in argument evaluation in which some stages are prerequisites for later stages, but experience suggests that the order is not always invariant (for example, not all arguments are part of an argument chain).

The Wisconsin team certainly intended their model to be used in schools as well as at college level, for example through Klausmeier’s approach to Individually Guided Education (Klausmeier et al., 1971).

Users of the model will need to acquire new knowledge and concepts, to build understanding of processes (e.g. classifying reasons by argumentative function) and engage in productive thinking (e.g. by appraising the acceptability of claims). Insofar as the model is to be applied to one’s own verbal arguments as well as to those of other people, it is clear that its use will also involve reflective thinking.

Evaluation

Although it is clearly formulated and coherent, Allen, Feezel and Kauffie’s scheme does not have a consistent classificatory principle (such as semantic qualities of argument components) running throughout. As it does not identify a set of elements to be classified which share key characteristics, it is a model rather than a taxonomy.

Productive thinking	131

However, there is a general progression in terms of cognitive demand from recognising a statement to recognising misuses of language in argument.

This is a distinctive model in that it brings together in an economical form a set of concepts and abilities which can be used in many content areas. It is closely related to Toulmin’s views about argument, which have stimulated much enquiry in the field of informal logic and have also been applied in the field of artificial intelligence. It is compatible with the wider critical thinking frameworks of Ennis (1987) and Paul (1987), as well as with King and Kitchener’s (1994) ideas about reflective judgment based on reasonable enquiry.

The scope of the model is rather narrow, covering only a subset of the 15 critical thinking abilities identified by Ennis (1998). It is not intended to apply to deductive syllogistic reasoning, but to everyday argument, which usually relies on assumptions and serves pragmatic rather than strictly logical communicative purposes. The first ten categories are about argument, taken to mean a process whereby a fact or facts convey another fact or whether assertion(s) support a truth claim. The last two categories are about argumentation or the use of rhetorical and linguistic devices, most of which come from scholastic tradition going back to Aristotle.

Inasmuch as argument is viewed as a process of reasoning based on commonly shared meanings, the Allen–Feezel–Kauffie model can be accepted as providing a comprehensive set of main categories. This acceptance depends on taking the argument patterns listed to include reasoning by analogy and from models. However, the model deals in broad categories and does not seek to provide a full set of subcategories of types of testimony or of criteria for evaluating testimony. Nor is it clear that the subcategories of irrelevance and language misuse are comprehensive. Ennis (1998) and Halpern (1997) provide further detail in these areas. We await a full philosophical analysis of spin.

This model clarifies in some detail the concepts and vocabulary needed to build and analyse arguments. Teachers may find it useful in lesson planning and in reviewing and appraising lessons to see whether their aims have been achieved. The skills involved are relevant in both oral discussion and written form, especially where students have to critically reflect on their practice or write essays. Outside

132 Frameworks for Thinking

formal education the model is potentially useful for all who seek to promote reasoned discussion and evidence-based decision-making. However, this potential is unlikely to be realised unless more examples of how it could be used in specific domains are developed.

Other writers have also promoted the idea of explicitly teaching reasoning skills. For example, Toulmin developed a framework to teach reasoning skills to young adults through the process of producing and evaluating arguments (Toulmin et al., 1984) and more recently, van Gelder has produced and begun to evaluate a software tool for the construction and analysis of arguments which uses a similar model (van Gelder, 2000 and 2001). Interest in teaching argument analysis in the UK enjoys periodic resurgence, as in the current AS Level in Critical Thinking and Hull University’s Improving the Quality of Argument project (Andrews, Costello and Clarke, 1993) which used Philosophy for Children approaches and saw the teaching of argument skills as ‘synonymous with the development of thinking skills’ (p. 39).

The constructive use and analysis of verbal argument is probably one of the most undervalued and poorly developed set of skills in the world today. As Whyte (2003, p. 10) points out, ‘the gap left by the education system’ leaves people ‘unable to resist the bogus reasoning of those who want something from them, such as votes or money or devotion’. If this is true, there is an urgent need for policy-makers and teachers to reframe their ideas about teaching and learning, putting a much higher value on the development of reasoning, not just for an intellectual elite, but for everybody. There is no point trying to raise educational standards if education does not give pride of place to these essential prerequisites for reputable research and balanced judgment.

Summary: Allen, Feezel and Kauffie

			Relevance for teachers
Purpose and structure	Some key features		and learning
Main purpose(s):	Terminology:		Intended audience:
• to promote critical	•	clear	• teachers
thinking	•	necessarily uses
		some technical terms