Microsoft Word - 5. Rapanta JAB edits+table fix.docx © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education: A Synthesis of Theoretical and Empirical Research CHRYSI RAPANTA ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy Universidade Nova de Lisboa Portugal chrysi.rapanta@fcsh.unl.pt Abstract: Douglas Walton, perhaps the most prolific author in Argumenta- tion theory, has been of a great influ- ence in the fields of Informal logic, Ar- tificial intelligence, and Law. His con- tributions in the field of educational re- search, in particular in the field of ar- gumentation and education, are less known. This review paper aims at shedding light on those aspects of Wal- ton’s theory that have received educa- tional researchers’ attention thus far, as well identifying existing lacks of con- sideration and open paths for future re- search. Résumé: Douglas Walton, peut-être l'auteur le plus prolifique de la théorie de l'argumentation, a eu une grande in- fluence dans les domaines de la lo- gique non-formelle, de l'intelligence artificielle et du droit. Ses contribu- tions dans le domaine de la recherche en éducation, en particulier dans le do- maine de l'argumentation et de l'éduca- tion, sont moins connues. Cet article de synthèse vise à faire la lumière sur les aspects de la théorie de Walton qui ont retenu l'attention des chercheurs en éducation jusqu'à présent, ainsi qu'à identifier les manques de considéra- tion existants et les voies ouvertes pour de futures recherches. Keywords: argumentation schemes, critical questions, educational research, dia- logue theory, Douglas Walton 1. Introduction Educational researchers are more and more interested in argumen- tation theory tools and developments. A field of research called “Ar- gumentation and education” was even born recently, joining re- searchers with a deep interest in applying argumentation as a peda- gogical method and/or as a tool of analysis and evaluation for stu- dents’ arguments. For some years now a special interest group in “Argumentation, Dialogue and Reasoning” has been part of the 140 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. European Association of Research for Learning and Instruction (EARLI – SIG26), holding its own biannual meeting. Overall, there is vast evidence that argumentation theory has become a tool and method for educational research and is there to stay. In the field of education, argumentation is mostly treated as a pedagogical method for developing and practising students’ argu- mentation skills, such as the construction of claims supported by some type of evidence, and the offering of a reasoning (explanation) of how the claims and evidence are connected (McNeill and Krajcik 2011). This skill, also known as theory-evidence coordination, is a requisite for meaningful learning, as it assumes gains in metacogni- tive control evident from middle childhood to adolescence (Kuhn, Katz and Dean 2004). Through placing oneself in the position to justify what (s)he thinks about why and how a particular phenome- non occurs, (s)he is naturally urged to compare and use available evidence supporting one theory over another. This is why, through arguing, children and adolescents become more conscious of what they know, how they know, and how they can strategically use what they know to persuade others (Kuhn et al. 2013). But also on issues that do not require any specific discipline-related knowledge, such as the so-called general or social issues, argumentation is proven to be a successful vehicle for students transforming available infor- mation into evidential support for a defended position, while at the same time taking into consideration the two-fold evidential function of some information, or the fact that some information can be more adequately used to support an opponent’s position rather than one’s own (Iordanou and Kuhn 2020). Understanding this duality of po- tential evidence is highly important from an epistemological devel- opment point of view, as it implies an evaluativist perspective on knowledge, as opposed to a multiplicist or absolutist one (Kuhn, Cheney and Weinstock 2000; Nussbaum, Sinatra and Poliquin 2008). However, as in any emerging area of research, the exact theoret- ical insights and frameworks used from the theoretical field of ar- gumentation to inform the empirical field of education largely vary according to researchers’ interests and willingness to get deep into the very roots of what they intend to apply as an innovative method of teaching, learning, and assessment. The present qualitative Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 141 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. synthesis paper aims at offering a comprehensive overview of what, how, and why has thus far mostly interested educational researchers when it comes to Douglas Walton’s extensive theoretical work in the field of reasoning, dialogue and argumentation. Doing this, still underexploited parts of his theory will also be revealed opening new paths for educational researchers to innovate in their corresponding fields. The paper is divided into thematic areas summarizing Walton’s major existing and potential contributions in educational research, such as argumentation schemes, critical questions, and argumenta- tion dialogue types. Each area will be theoretically and empirically explained and showcased by educational research when this is avail- able. When it is not, possible paths for future research will be iden- tified. A conclusion will summarize the theoretical and empirical evidence previously explained, and the corresponding identified gaps. 2. Walton’s theory of argumentation schemes and its influence on education Walton’s theory of argumentation schemes is primarily proposed in two books, namely: Argumentation schemes for presumptive rea- soning (Walton 1996) and Argumentation schemes (Walton, Reed, and Macagno 2008). The first only focuses on presumption as a rea- soning context for arguments to emerge, while the second opens up to different types of reasoning such as deductive, inductive, and analogy. The numbers of schemes included in each also differs, with the former listing only twenty-five of such schemes, and the latter listing sixty. Before exploring the existing and potential contribu- tion of this theoretical advancement in educational research, let us first briefly review the major innovations this idea has brought to argumentation theory. Introducing presumption as the primary context in which every- day argumentation can take place has been largely innovative. As Blair (2001) comments, presumptions are neither assertions (typical of deductive reasoning) or assumptions (typical of inductive reason- ing); they “come into play in the absence of firm evidence or knowledge” (p. 366). Initially situating arguments as instances of presumption is explained by Walton’s emphasis on the dialogue 142 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. context as a framing and a criterion for a scheme to be validated. For Walton (1996), an argumentation scheme is nothing more than a pattern of a unit of reasoning situated locally in an argumentative dialogue. This idea was extended by Walton et al. (2008), whose aim was to provide a classification, as exhaustive as possible, of stereotypical patterns of the most common arguments emerging in everyday discourse. Rather than using some schemes to exemplify presumption, as in Walton (1996), Walton et al. (2008) systemati- cally describe the argumentation schemes that were developed in the dialectical tradition (under different labels and theories) and or- ganize them in macro-categories (analogy, classification, knowledge-based, ethotic, practical, and causal), distinguishing the basic schemes from their specifications and combinations. The use of argumentation schemes as assessment tools in educa- tion is well justified, given that (a) pedagogical dialogue is a type of everyday dialogue and (b) scientific dialogue, commonly used as the basis for pedagogical dialogue, is highly presumptive. In Rapanta, Garcia-Mila, and Gilabert's (2013) review paper on edu- cational argumentation research, among ninety-seven empirical studies dating from 1985 to 2010, twelve applied argumentation schemes as their main assessment method of students’ argument skills. All of them refer to Walton (1996), which is quite limited as compared to Walton et al. (2008). Below I describe three of these studies as most representative of Rapanta et al.’s (2013) sample, be- fore I describe a new search among more recent studies. Ferretti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly (2009) used seven argu- mentation schemes from Walton (1996) as a method of identifying middle-grade students’ persuasive strategies in written essays about a general interest issue (viz., whether students should be given more homework or not). They showed that despite their demographic var- iance, students overwhelmingly used the argument from conse- quences scheme/strategy, which was considered adequate by the au- thors for the policy making issue concerned. However, when it comes to the quality of this and other schemes used, students largely failed to address the critical questions corresponding to each. As a result, the overall persuasive quality of their essays remained low. Abi-El-Mona and Abd-El-Khalick (2006) used a combination of Toulmin (1958) argument pattern (TAP) and Walton’s (1996) Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 143 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. presumptive reasoning schemes to analyze high-school students’ oral arguments (ordinary classes, laboratory sessions, and inter- views) in chemistry. Overall, students’ arguments were found to be limited both in quantity and quality (applying TAP-related structure criteria). When it comes to the types of schemes used, the authors found that these varied across the three contexts, with the most de- veloped ones being used in the interview context. This was justified by the structure of the interviews including probing and epistemic prompts, which led students to the manifestation of explicit reason- ing structures in their discourse, such as arguments from sign, from example, or from analogy. Abi-El-Mona and Abd-El-Khalick’s (2006) study confirms a previous result by Duschl, Ellenbogen, and Erduran (1999) and Duschl (2007) that students have a greater po- tential in argumentation than the one identified by strict analytical logical tools like TAP. Walton’s schemes of presumptive reasoning can be a useful diagnostic tool for identifying students’ strategic po- tential. Also using a combination of Toulmin (1958) and Walton (1996), Jiménez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-Muñoz (2002) studied the quality of high-school students’ arguments around a socio-scientific issue (viz., construction of a local drainpipes’ network) during classroom discourse. The authors place a particular emphasis on the use of ar- gument from authority by the students, when it comes to deciding who has the status of expert, within that deliberation context, and whether there is consistency with other experts and with other avail- able evidence. Through engaging in this kind of advanced reason- ing, the authors showed how students can pass from being “knowledge consumers” to becoming “knowledge producers,” therefore citizens able to think critically about a social issue of high relevance for their lives. Being interested in how Walton’s schemes were used both theo- retically and empirically after 2010, a new search was conducted in the largest scientific meta-database (Scopus), with the following keywords: ‘argument* schemes,’ ‘education,’ and ‘Walton,’ ap- pearing in the full text of the sources. 254 articles emerged from this search. Of these, twenty articles were selected as appropriate be- cause they explicitly described a theoretical appropriation and/or empirical implementation of Walton’s et al. (2008) or Walton’s 144 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. (1996) argumentation schemes in educational contexts. Figure 1 presents an overview of these articles, corresponding to seventeen studies (three studies were presented in more than one article). Fig- ure1presents the main emerged contributions along with the imple- mentation of the schemes used by these studies. Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 145 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Figure 1. Overview of studies directly applying Walton’s argumentation schemes in edu- cational contexts from 2011 onwards 2.1. Science Duschl (2007) was among the first educational researchers to take an explicit position in favour of the use of Walton’s argumentation schemes as analytical tools in science education, also replacing TAP. The rationale behind this is that scientific discourse and rea- soning is mainly rhetorical and dialectical (see also Ford 2008), and much less analytical; therefore, a tool that helps bring to surface the rhetorical and dialectical nature of students’ arguments is necessary (see also Godden 2015). Although TAP implies arguments’ rhe- toricity and dialecticity (Nielsen 2013), it does not provide any ad- ditional help in making the reasoning behind the selection of certain elements and not others explicit (Hand et al. 2016). With argumen- tation schemes, this is possible: through the explicitation of prem- ises that are the most adequate ones for a specific type of scheme, one can decide on the type of evidence that is most adequate for a specific type of scientific explanation. The TAP cannot provide any insight in whether the students’ reasoning is acceptable or based on correct/incorrect premises. One can have a full structure with prem- ises that are false, wrong, incomplete, or unrelated. In contrast, ar- gumentation schemes allow distinguishing reasonable from unrea- sonable arguments—and detecting whether the students’ reasoning follows from the premises (evidence) and whether the warrant used is complete, developed, or needs to be integrated and developed. In a sense, argumentation schemes introduce an assessment dimen- sion, similar to the one present in a dialogue, which is missing from the Toulmin structure. For example, if a student chooses to explain a scientific phe- nomenon using a cause to effect scheme, the most adequate evi- dence corresponds to the major and minor premises that accompany such scheme, namely: (a) the causal link (i.e., “generally, if A oc- curs, then B will occur”); and (b) the factual premise (i.e., A 146 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. occurs/might occur). In fact, among the empirical studies reviewed in science (see Figure 1), causal schemes (cause to effect, and cor- relation to cause), argument from sign/example, and analogy were the schemes that mostly emerged. Table 1 presents some reported students’ examples from each one of these categories, and how they were identified and assessed by the studies’ corresponding authors both in oral and written discourse. Table 1. Examples of the most common schemes in students’ arguments in sci- ence. 2.2. History According to De La Paz and Wissinger (2017), Walton’s et al. (2008) schemes provide a promising framework for analyzing pri- mary and secondary sources and identifying aspects of text that re- veal an author’s point of view. Both these skills are strongly related to historical reasoning, and students’ capacity to efficiently Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 147 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. structure essays on historical topics (more about the writing part will be explained in the next section). In fact, De La Paz et al. (2012) identified 22 different argumentation strategies manifested in schemes among secondary students’ essays on two historical topics. However, only six of the strategies corresponding to a Walton et al.’s (2008) argumentation scheme were significantly related to stu- dents’ ability, and these were largely different from topic to topic. These strategies were: verbal classification, example, consequence, and expert opinion for Topic 1; and commitment, expert opinion, and values for Topic 2 (only argument from expert opinion was ap- plicable to both topics). De La Paz et al. (2012) also found that “good writers used three strategies in particular (argument from ex- ample, argument from consequence, and argument from expert opinion) not only to warrant their standpoints about both topics but also to frame their use of evidence” (p. 443). Table 2 presents a stu- dent’s historical argument example given by De La Paz et al. (2012) with an analysis given by the author. Table 2. Student’s historical argument analysed using Walton’s argumentation schemes. 148 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. 2.3. Social issues When it comes to analysing students’ reasoning about social issues, i.e., issues of a common interest for the general public, the theory of paraschemes proposed by Walton (2010) is of great use. As social issue discussion does not have any particular disciplinary context to which it relates, and personal arguments may commonly emerge, Rapanta and Walton (2016a; 2016b) propose a method of identify- ing students’ less valid argumentation schemes (i.e., paraschemes), as they emerge in an argument diagramming exercise of university students. Paraschemes represent speedy forms of inference that in- stinctively jump to a conclusion, without weighing the most rele- vant available information first. An analyst may decide whether an argument meets the minimum plausibility criteria in order to be sound or not, by first identifying which is the type of argumentation scheme most related to the argument produced, and second, by ask- ing the critical questions accompanying it. As most everyday argu- ments are uttered enthymematically, i.e., without all the premises made explicit, the satisfaction or not of the critical questions match- ing each argument/scheme may be limited to those questions di- rectly relating to acceptability and sufficiency of the premises, nec- essary for an argument to be minimally plausible and sound. These standard criteria of soundness/plausibility are, according to Voss et al.: “1) the acceptability or plausibility of the reason per se; 2) the relevance or support that the reason provides for the claim; and 3) the extent to which counterarguments are taken into account” (1993 p. 166). Translating these criteria into critical questions, the analyst may take the decision upon whether an argument corresponds to a valid argumentation scheme or a parascheme by asking about: 1) the relation between the major premise and the conclusion, i.e., how relevant the major premise is to support the conclusion; 2) the suf- ficiency of the support provided to sustain the plausibility of the conclusion; and 3) the weighing/consideration of other alternative premises that may lead to a different conclusion. For example, the inference represented as “if p is an expert opinion, p should be accepted” is a paraschematic version of the complete argument from expert opinion, and it corresponds to the ad verecundiam fallacy. In natural language, this non-valid argu- ment (parascheme) would be: “An expert E says that A is true in Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 149 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. their domain of expertise. Therefore, A is true.” The critical ques- tions that fail to be answered in this case are: 1) Is E an expert in the field that A is in? 2) What did E assert that implies A? 3) Is E’s assertion based on evidence other than his/her assertion itself? A complete list of the main informal argumentation schemes and their corresponding paraschematic versions can be found in Rapanta and Walton (2016b; p. 215). The same method of fallacy identification using the heuristic forms of argumentation schemes was also used by Rapanta and Macagno (2019) in their analysis of academic writ- ing texts written by post-graduate students in Social Sciences and Humanities. Table 3 shows an excerpt of an essay, part of that study, analysed using paraschemes. The first example is located in the in- troduction of the essay, whereas the second example refers to the identification of a gap in the existing literature. Table 3. Examples of paraschemes emerged in academic writing essay drafts. In conclusion, Walton’s (1996) and Walton et al.’s (2008) argu- mentation schemes have been recognized by education researchers as useful tools for analysing students’ arguments in different disci- plinary fields and grades. This recognition has many times been 150 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. accompanied by a comparison to the highly used but perhaps not- as-successful adaptation of TAP to educational contexts. For exam- ple, Hand et al. (2016) argue that the passage from “a strict Toul- minian perspective toward the dialogic illustration of argument championed by Walton” is crucial as it is “one that opens the door to adaptive pedagogy” (p. 226). In addition, many scholars have used the two approaches in combination (e.g. Abi-El-Mona and Abd-El-Khalick, 2006; Basel et al., 2013; Jiménez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-Muñoz, 2002), whereas a recent paper (Macagno and Rapanta 2019) presents an integrated framework combining Wal- ton, Toulmin, and Deanna Kuhn, a prominent educational re- searcher, as a method for analysing and assessing students’ argu- ments. However, what makes Walton’s approach unique is the in- clusion of critical questions as a necessary condition for an argu- mentation scheme to be valid. Al- though his theory of paraschemes as analytical tools has not yet received much attention by educa- tional researchers, the use of critical questions as a method of fos- tering the emergence of valid argumentation schemes in students’ writing has been broadly used as I will show in the next section. 3. Walton’s critical questions as a tool for fostering students’ argumentative reasoning skills Since Socratic times, questioning has been an important pedagogi- cal tool, as it allows learners to make their reasoning explicit, and advance their knowledge, by “filling in” the gaps between prior and new knowledge. Moreover, questioning the evidence for a claim, as is the case for Walton’s critical questions, is considered an essential aspect of scientific literacy (Roberts and Gott 2010), defined as the ability to combine knowledge, values and actions about topics re- quiring some disciplinary knowledge in order to be sufficiently ad- dressed (Kolstø 2001). Nussbaum (Nussbaum and Edwards 2011; Nussbaum and Putney 2020; Nussbaum et al. 2019) was one of the first educational researchers who saw the value of Walton’s critical questions as a scaffolding tool for students’ writing about social (i.e., general in- terest) topics. Based on the positive results obtained by Nussbaum and Schraw (2007), who fostered university students’ argument- counterargument integration strategies in writing essays using a Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 151 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. simple graphic organizer, Nussbaum (2008) proposed the Argu- mentation Vee Diagram (AVD) which explicitly focuses on the in- tegration between arguments and counterarguments. The reasoning behind this idea is that the skill of arguing is at least a three-fold skill, namely: constructing cogent arguments, constructing cogent counterarguments, and generating rebuttals to those counterargu- ments (Kuhn 1991; Nussbaum 2021). Nussbaum (2008) combined the AVD tool with two main critical questions to facilitate students’ argument-counterargument integration strategies, corresponding to the rebuttal skill. These critical questions were: “Which side is stronger, and why?” and “Is there a compromise or creative solu- tion?” In a subsequent study, Nussbaum and Edwards (2011) further elaborated the critical question prompts by introducing a table with a list of schemes-related critical questions on one part and a check- list for each one of the sides on the other (p. 460). This visualization, which allowed for a guided weighing of the two sides’ arguments, led to the manifestation of different types of integration strategies, such as synthesis, weighing, refutation. Pseudo-integration strate- gies were also present in students’ essays, such as restatement and amplification of the side or argument that the student considered as the strongest. Walton’s critical questions have been used also in other contexts, not only related to writing. For example, Macagno, Mayweg-Paus, and Kuhn (2015) describe the function of a dialogical move aiming at undermining the opponent’s position through the use of critical questions. These moves, called ‘undercutters’, being attacks against the inferential link between premises and conclusion, question or reject the premises that support the opponent’s conclusion by sup- porting their falsity or asking critical questions. Table 4 shows an excerpt from a dialogue between a middle-grade student and an ‘ex- pert’ adult in which several types of undercutters based on critical questions emerged. 152 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Table 4. Critical questions used as undercutters (the dialogue excerpt is from Macagno et al. 2015). As seen in the example above, taken from a dialogue on the topic of expelling disturbing students from school, the expert (i.e., an adult trained on using dialectical moves) replies to the student’s practical reasoning scheme by an argument from example that serves as an undercutter (Line 2) to the student’s proposal (Line 1). Then the student replies with another undercutter that also used ar- gument from example (Line 3). The expert continues with a differ- ent scheme (argument from values) undercutter on Line 4, giving place to the student’s second spontaneous undercutter on Line 5. Two things are further worthy of our attention here: first, the expert uses undercutters corresponding to a variety of argument schemes, whereas the non-expert student does not (this is more visible from the whole excerpt found in Macagno et al. 2015, p. 532); second, the critical questions used as undercutters by the expert have a mod- elling effect on similar strategies gradually appropriated by the stu- dent. The fact that teachers’ dialogue moves, and in particular ques- tions, have a modelling effect on students’ dialogical behaviour, i.e., the fact that they affect the degree and way students use similar dis- cursive strategies, is confirmed by extensive educational research literature (e.g., Chen, Hand and Norton-Meier 2017; Dawson and Venville 2010; Murphy et al. 2018; Simon, Erduran and Osborne 2006). What Walton et al.’s (2008) critical questions and their use in educational contexts also bring is their dialogical and dialectical relevance. Dialogue moves efficiently applying critical questions Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 153 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. are relevant to the previous dialogue moves in the sense that they help the dialogue move forward. In addition, their direct relation to a valid argumentation scheme gives them a significant dialectical potential as they aim at revealing the logical relation between the argument premises, therefore they are logically more complete. For example, the student in Line 3 of the example above (Table 4) in- stead of simply saying “What if they had tried?”, (s)he says “What if they had tried, but they thought that misbehaving was the better path to take?” Overall, Walton’s critical questions have been quite often used in educational research, especially as a scaffolding method for stu- dents’ argumentative, two-sided writing integrating arguments in favour and against a position. More research is necessary to explore the potential of critical questions in classroom dialogue settings, as compared for example to other types of questions that miss this crit- ical component. 4. Walton’s types of dialogue and their influence in educational research Walton’s theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions is only a part of his dialogue theory, the other part being the types of dialogical contexts in which such schemes and questions may emerge. Walton (2013) describes at least seven types of dialogue contexts with an argumentative potential: information seeking, in- quiry, negotiation, discovery, persuasion, deliberation, and eristic dialogue. Each one of these has a starting point, functioning as a necessary condition for the dialogue to take place, participants’ shared dialogue goal being pursued during the dialogue, and partic- ipants’ individual dialogue aims fitting together in the shared goal (see Table 5). This normativity, expected in a theory-driven ap- proach such as Walton’s dialogue theory, is not restrictive at the time of implementing these types of dialogue as analytical tools in classroom discourse. Their flexibility lies in the fact they are frame- works for describing possible argumentative dialogues, through the application of some normative criteria, as, for example, the partici- pants’ implied shared goal; they are not prescribing an optimum model of dialogue, as for example the Critical Discussion dialogue 154 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. model offered by the Pragma-dialectical approach (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2003). Table 5. The seven types of dialogue proposed by Walton (2013). Various educational researchers refer to one or more of Walton’s types of dialogues as a framework to describe what classroom argu- mentation dialogue is ideally about. This educational ideal perspec- tive does not imply any idealistic model of dialogue; it simply refers to the educational ideal of applying the two main aspects of critical thinking, namely persuasive argument and inquiry (Kuhn 2019). In fact, Walton’s description of a persuasion dialogue (Walton 2008; 1999) has been used as the basis for educational interventions ex- plicitly using disagreement as the basis for putting forward one’s one views while at the same time undermining those of the other party. Other scholars (Reznitskaya and Gregory 2013; Wilkinson et al. 2017) have suggested inquiry as the dialogue framework that best describes what takes place in an argument-based classroom where the goal is to search collectively for the most reasonable an- swer or answers to an open problem. Recent research (Felton et al. 2019) focuses on Walton’s deliberation (Walton 2010a; Walton, Toniolo, and Norman 2016) as a framework of productive dialogi- cal argumentation, in which participants seek to resolve an apparent or real discrepancy in their views “to reach an optimal, nuanced, robust or complex decision about a course of action” (Felton et al. 2019, p. 2). Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 155 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. All the above examples view Walton’s dialogue types as a gen- eral framework for a dialogue to take place in. They view partici- pants’ goals as being the same during a whole episode of interac- tion, as in the case of peer-to-peer deliberative dialogues, or even during a whole type of activity, as in the case of inquiry-oriented dialogic teaching. In other words, I argue that the view currently implied by educational researchers in view of Walton’s dialogue goals reflects the instructional framing approach (Ford and Wargo 2011; González-Howard and McNeill 2018; Schwarz and Baker 2017) adopted by researchers in the field of argumentation and ed- ucation, rather than the actual progress of a situated learning dia- logue. In particular, the views described above by Deanna Kuhn, Alina Reznitskaya and Mark Felton correspond to three different types of instructional framings of argumentative dialogue, namely: (a) an argument-as-persuasion framing, where dyadic peer-to-peer interaction is necessary to choose the best explanation among two contradictory ones; (b) an argument-as-inquiry framing, in which several perspectives about an open problem can be simultaneously valid especially in a whole-class format; and (c) an argument-as- deliberation framing, in which a decision about a particular problem needs to be taken by means of small-group discussion, even if this decision corresponds to agree to disagree. Another way of looking at Walton’s types of dialogue is at a se- quence level. This view implies that participants engaging in a dia- logic activity can shift from goal to goal during the whole course of activity. In a classroom context, this view implies that dialogue is seen as a bottom-up emerging activity, open to all different possi- bilities, which sometimes are also different from the main possibil- ity that frames teachers’ and students’ epistemic interactions, as the ones previously described. This view, recently showcased by Rapanta and Christodoulou (2019), is more pragmatic, in the sense of describing the continuous, dynamic interaction between meaning (discourse) and context (dialogue goal). It further implies the im- portance of individual dialogue moves, made by either the teacher or the students, which can be crucial in marking a shift in the type of dialogic sequence participants are engaged with. Such “fluid and subtle shifts” (O’Connor and Michaels 1996) are necessary for the creation of new, more productive participation structures (Engle 156 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. 2006; González-Howard and McNeill 2018). In addition, when the shift is marked by the teacher, it is also common that a better align- ment with the academic tasks and goals is achieved. For example, O’Connor and Michaels (1993) describe how a Maths teacher named Lynne transforms what would typically be an information- seeking dialogue, i.e., students sharing their own solutions with each other, into an inquiry dialogue, aimed at identifying the best explained solution of the given problem. She does this using the strategy of revoicing students’ contributions, while reinforcing and reformulating their evidential support. In conclusion, Walton’s types of dialogue have influenced the way educational researchers look at classroom dialogue and dis- course, but to a more limited degree than argumentation schemes have done. In particular, the interaction between schemes and dia- logue type identified at a sequence level, which is already studied in fields rather than education (see, for example Macagno and Bigi's 2017 study in the field of medical communication), is open to fur- ther research. This pragmatic interaction between what participants say and how this contributes to their shared goal in dialogue can also give place to the identification of missed opportunities or af- fordances (Rapanta and Christodoulou 2019). These missed oppor- tunities often refer to students’ moves with a dialogic and dialectical potential (e.g., shifting the flow of dialogue from one type to an- other) which end up being ignored by the teachers because of lack of time, or lack of ability to orchestrate productive whole-class dis- cussions (Clarke et al. 2016). Some other times missed opportuni- ties include teachers’ efforts to shift to a more epistemically requir- ing type of dialogue (e.g., discovery, persuasion) without students sufficiently contributing to those efforts, therefore without evidence of a mutually pursued shared goal (Walton and Macagno 2016). Recognizing opportunities for shifting to a more productive type of frame of dialogue, eliciting co-construction of contents and mean- ings among students and between students and the teacher, is an open challenge for teacher professional development in the field of dialogic and argument-based teaching (Sedova, Sedlacek and Svaricek 2016; Wilkinson et al. 2017). Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 157 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. 5. Open paths for future research Although argumentation schemes, critical questions, and dialogue types have influenced educational researchers, other aspects in Douglas Walton’s theory with a potential for education have not yet been exploited as much. Below I will refer to some of them. 5.1. Defining an argument – argument vs explanation In his seminal work titled “What is reasoning? What is argument?” Walton (1990) establishes a distinction between what can be de- fined as reasoning or inference, and argument. In his view, reason- ing is “the making or granting of assumptions called premises (start- ing points) and the process of moving toward conclusions (end points) from these assumptions by means of warrants” (Walton 1990, p. 403); whereas argument is “a social and verbal means of trying to resolve, or at least to contend with, a conflict or difference that has arisen or exists between two (or more) parties” (Walton 1990, p. 411). An argument includes reasoning, but reasoning can take place in other contexts rather than argument. For instance, crit- ical thinking assessment tests require the manifestation of several types of reasoning skills, but do not include a full manifestation of argument skills, as the social (real, as in argumentative dialogue, or implicit, as in argumentative writing) aspect of argumentation is missing. The distinction between reasoning and argument is also im- portant for another reason, of high significance for educators, which is the place of explanation in classroom discourse (both oral and written). If reasoning highly corresponds to the passage from one set of premises to another by means of a warrant (i.e., an inferential link between the conclusion and the premises), then it is easy to un- derstand why a great part of reasoning inferences are explanatory inferences, mainly of a causal nature. And if explanations are con- ceived as assignments of causal responsibilities (Josephson and Josephson 1996) then argument is the logical tool with which we decide the plausibility and strength of those responsibilities. For ex- ample, in science, an explanation can correspond to the formulation of a hypothesis (e.g., objects fall because of gravity), but then we need evidence to support this explanation or not (Berland and 158 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. McNeill 2012; see also Bex and Walton 2016, for a view on how arguments are used to support explanations). Similarly, in history, an evidence can be used as the one that best explains a historical incident, for example a quotation from a significant document, but then we need explanation to support how and why this evidence works in service of our argument. In conclusion, argument and ex- planation are complementary (Osborne and Patterson 2011), but in no way can an explanation alone function as evidence for an argu- ment claim as described in the next section. 5.2. Defining evidence The distinction between argument and explanation is an important one when it comes to defining what is evidence and how to teach students about it (McNeill 2011). In education, the term ‘evidence’ is quite ill-defined, also because in different fields/topics of discus- sion, different things may count as evidence. For instance, in sci- ence, the majority of arguments are “warrant-establishing” (Toulmin 1958) in the sense that the warrant, not the conclusion, is novel, and put forward to open discussion. In other words, the ele- ment of risk inherent in an argument lies in the warrant, but the bur- den of proof, upon which it is decided whether the warrant is an acceptable truth or not, lies in the backing. In history, where the majority of arguments are “warrant-using” (Toulmin 1958), the el- ement of risk lies in the data used to support a claim, but the burden of proof, upon which it is decided whether the data is acceptable to support a specific claim or not, lies in the warrant. Therefore, it can be said that in the science case, warrants serve as explanations, which are open to discussion and therefore need evidence (backing) to be supported; while in the history case, data serve as explana- tions, which are open to discussion and therefore need evidence (warrant and backings) to be supported. Table 6 shows an example of each (see also Rapanta 2019a). Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 159 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Warrant-establishing argument in science Warrant-using argument in history claim It is possible to make ice cream that doesn’t melt. Neanderthals were much more sophisticated than is popularly believed. data By adding a protein pre- sent in Japanese fer- mented soybeans called “natto”. Paintings found in three Spanish caves are over 64,000 years old. warrant This protein was found to fix together fat, water, and air in the ice cream. That’s 20,000 years be- fore the first humans ar- rived in Europe. backing Experiments by Scottish scientists showed that by adding this protein, ice cream is maintained solid for a longer time. The team behind this study used the uranium- thorium method to date tiny carbonate deposits that have built up on top of the cave paintings. Table 6. Examples of warrant-establishing and warrant-using arguments. As can be seen in Table 6, in the science case the claim and data together count as an explanation, as it cannot be subject to doubt (the syllogism of the ‘if x, then y’ type applies), and the part of the argument that is subject to doubt and calls for evidence is the war- rant. However, in the history case, the warrant, which in that case corresponds to a generally accepted truth, serves as an explanation, which fills the gap between the claim and the data. The part that is mostly subject to doubt here is the claim, which seems to be unre- lated to the data before the warrant becomes explicit. The warrant here becomes the explanation, and the data is further supported by the backing. In both cases, the evidence corresponds to the backing; however, what counts as an explanation, is located in different ele- ments of the argument. In warrant-establishing arguments, the back- ing-evidence supports the warrant, which supports the claim-data relation, whereas in warrant-using arguments, the backing-evidence supports the data through the warrant. 160 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Why does this distinction matter and how does it relate to Wal- ton’ theory? It matters because different argument elements must be present (explicit) for an argument to make sense in one case or an- other, and it is those necessarily present elements that are open to be challenged, therefore calling for critical questions to be asked. In the above example, for the science case, the data is less important than the warrant, and the warrant needs to be made explicit before the backing. However, for the history case, the warrant is less im- portant than the data and it only needs to be made explicit in case the backing is not considered sufficient. In the first case, critical questions are expected to focus on the backing-warrant relation (for example, what about other proteins? What happens with tempera- ture change? etc.). In the second case, critical questions are expected to focus on the claim-data relation (for example, what does this find- ing tell us about humans’ history? how can the paintings’ age be defined? etc.). The above can have significant influences both for the designing of argument-based learning environments, both with and without computer support, in which critical questions have a central place, as well for the development of artificial intelligence argument ana- lytical tools. Regarding the latter, locating where (i.e., data, warrant, backing) within the argument logical structure arguers’ fallacious use of premises takes place can be of great help for education and AI researchers alike (see Rapanta and Walton 2016b, for a step to- wards this direction). 5.3. Argument diagramming for collaboration Argument diagramming tools such as argument maps enable partic- ipants in argumentation to not only maintain arguments and coun- terarguments in working memory, but also to organize their thoughts in approaching the problem of how to evaluate the argu- ments. Therefore, their use as scaffolding tools in real-time com- puter-supported collaborative argumentation is of great value, as ex- tensive research in education has shown (e.g. Andriessen and Baker 2013; Muller-Mirza et al. 2007). One of the least known contributions of Douglas Walton, at least within educational research, is his construction of a computer-sup- ported argument mapping software called Carneades (Walton and Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 161 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Gordon 2012). Its innovative aspect as compared to other argument diagramming tools is the fact that it can handle the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme, representing therefore the evi- dentiary structure of reasoning in a more explicit and manageable way. Although a formal system such as Carneades allows argumen- tation to be analyzed at a greater depth, Walton (personal commu- nication1) himself does not consider this and other graphical tools to be necessary for representing the structure of an argument. How- ever, being able to integrate such an advanced artificial intelligence method of integrating critical questions in arguments’ evaluation with a computer-supported argumentative dialogue interface is a promising future direction for educational researchers working in that field. Another way of combining artificial intelligence with education based on Walton’s dialogue theory is the one proposed by Wecker and Fischer (2014, p. 226). According to these authors, a taxonomy synthesizing different relevant aspects related to the quantity and quality of students’ arguments in comparable computer-supported collaborative learning situations could be very helpful at the time of scripting dialogue occurring within them. Walton et al.’s (2008) schemes, these authors argue, should form part of such a taxonomy as they can help identify the occurrence and number of different types of arguments. An additional contribution regarding the use of argument dia- gramming tools, such as Carneades, as a way of visualizing and scaffolding real-time interaction is the assessment of the logical re- lation—‘local’ relevance (Walton 1989) among argument elements, but also of the different claims between them—consistency (Montanari 2019). More work towards this direction is necessary, also in light of recent advances in automatized argument mining tools (see Walton and Gordon 2019, for a review). 1 Back in 2015, Douglas Walton shared with me by e-mail his thought that we do not need any automated tools to make a useful argument diagram. We can use a pencil and paper, and this method can often be a useful first step before using one of these systems to make a more refined and pleasing version of the diagram. 162 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. 5.4. Social epistemology Another less investigated aspect of Walton’ theory is his defeasible conception of knowledge (Walton 2005), characterized by three principles: (a) knowledge, as something being collected during a process of inquiry, is always open to retraction; (b) a knowledge base can be incomplete or even closed-off due to reasons irrelevant to the inquiry itself (e.g., lack of funds to continue an investigation, death of the principal investigator, etc.); (c) a knowledge base can be fallible and it is always possible to be reopened as new evidential facts need to be considered. This approach of knowledge and knowledge base construction is very important as it defines when and how factual information becomes knowledge, and a piece of knowledge becomes evidence. This view also represents a social epistemology, “because the process of presenting and criticizing the evidence collected at any given point in the sequence of argumen- tation requires an exchange of views between pro and contra sides” (Walton and Zhang 2013; p. 179). The above view is highly meaningful for education researchers and practitioners for at least two reasons. First, it provides a defea- sible view not only of evidence (i.e., a piece of knowledge decided to have evidentiary power at a certain moment of inquiry/argumen- tation), but also of expertise as different sources can be decided to be in position to know during different stages of the investigation. This view is necessary for redefining pedagogical dialogue from a one-way monological interaction to an authentic multi-party dia- logue with students’ epistemic agency being constantly and dynam- ically promoted (see also Lai and Campbell 2018; Rapanta 2019b). Second, it contributes to the operationalization and promotion of critical thinking not as an abstract ill-defined concept but as the manifestation and implementation of concrete skills that regard the identification, comparison and use of a concrete piece of infor- mation as evidence to support a claim put forward in a specific dia- logical context (Kuhn 2019). Third, as other epistemological skills, argument-related socio-epistemological awareness is understood as a transferrable competence, therefore it is justified why learning to argue in a specific dialogic context is transferred to other (types of) Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 163 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. contexts (for example from oral to written argumentation or from one topic to another—see Iordanou and Rapanta 2021). 6. Conclusion The goal of this review article was to provide a qualitative synthesis of empirical and theoretical research applying and advancing Doug- las Walton’s contributions in the field of education. The two fields of argumentation theory, on one hand, and educational research, on the other, have often advanced separately without one informing the other, therefore often rendering argumentation and education appli- cations theoretically weak (Rapanta and Macagno 2016). Douglas Walton’s theoretical contributions in the argumentation field, such as the argumentation schemes, the critical questions, and the types of argument dialogues, have been proven “handy” tools for educa- tional research to use, as the overview presented above showed. Moreover, other aspects of Douglas Walton’s theory such as the re- lation between argument and explanation and the use of argument diagramming and assessing tools for collaborative learning have at- tracted less attention by educational researchers, therefore calling for more in-depth explorations in the future. The roadmap provided in this review of more or less explored aspects of Douglas Walton’s contributions in educational research is meant to guide more theo- retically reliable advances in the growing interdisciplinary field of argumentation and education. Acknowledgements The author received funding from the Portuguese Science and Tech- nology Foundation with grant numbers: UIDB/00183/2020DL (IFILNOVA’s strategic project), 57/2016/CP1453/CT0066 (Norma Transitória), PTDC/FER-FIL/29906/2017 (Project P4C-AIM: Phi- losophy for children and the dawn of moral intuition: Values and reasons in rationality and reasonability), and PTDC/FER- FIL/28278/2017 (Project METACARE: Evidence-based metaphors for diabetes care). 164 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. References Abi-El-Mona, Issam, and Fouad Abd-El-Khalick. 2006. Argumentative discourse in a high school chemistry classroom. School Science and Mathematics 106(8): 349–61. Andriessen, Jerry, and Michael Baker. 2013. Argument diagrams and learning: Cognitive and educational perspectives. In Learning through visual displays, edited by Gregory Schraw, Matthew McCrudden, and Daniel Robinson, 303–28. Charlotte: IAG Publishing. Berland, Leema K., and Katherine L. McNeill. 2012. For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education 96 (5): 808–13. Bex, Floris, and Douglas Walton. 2016. Combining explanation and argumentation in dialogue. Argument & Computation 7(1): 55–68. Blair, Anthony. 2001. Walton’s Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A critique and development. Argumentation 15(4): 365– 79. Chen, Ying-Chih, Brian Hand, and Lori Norton-Meier. 2017. Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education 47(2): 373-405. Clarke, Sherice N., Iris Howley, Lauren Resnick, and Carolyn P. Rosé. 2016. Student agency to participate in dialogic science discussions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 10(1): 27–39. Dawson, Vaille M., and Grady Venville. 2010. Teaching strategies for developing students’ Argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education 40(2): 133-148. De La Paz, Susan, Ralph Ferretti, Daniel Wissinger, Laura Yee, and Charles MacArthur. 2012. Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication 29(4): 412–454. De La Paz, Susan, and Daniel R. Wissinger. 2017. Improving the historical knowledge and writing of students with or at risk for LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities 50(6): 658–71. Duschl, Richard. 2007. Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In Argumentation in Science Education. Eds Sibel Erduran and Maria Pilar Jiménez Aleixandre, 159–175. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 165 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Duschl, Richard, Kirsten Ellenbogen, and Sibel Erduran. 1999. Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation.” In Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 1–19. Boston: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453050. Eemeren, F. H. Van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2003. A pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation 17(4): 365–86. Engle, Randi A. 2006. Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 15(4): 451-498. Felton, Mark, Amanda Crowell, Merce Garcia-Mila, and Constanza Villarroel. 2019. Capturing deliberative argument: an analytic coding scheme for studying argumentative dialogue and its benefits for learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, Online first. Ferretti, Ralph P., William E. Lewis, and Scott Andrews-Weckerly. 2009. Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology 101(3): 577–89. Ford, Michael. 2008. Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education 92(3): 404–23. Ford, Michael, and Brian Wargo. 2012. Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education 96(3): 369-391. Godden, David. 2015. Argumentation, rationality, and psychology of reasoning. Informal Logic 35(2): 135–66. González‐Howard, María, and Katherine L. McNeill. 2019. Teachers' framing of argumentation goals: working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 56(6): 821-844. Hand, Brian, Andy Cavagnetto, Ying Chih Chen, and Soonhye Park. 2016. Moving past curricula and strategies: language and the development of adaptive pedagogy for immersive learning environments. Research in Science Education 46(2): 223–41. Jiménez-Aleixandre, María Pilar, and Cristina Pereiro-Muñoz. 2002. Knowledge Producers or Knowledge Consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education 24(11): 1171–90. Josephson, John R, and Susan G Josephson. 1996. Abductive inference. 1–29. Iordanou, Kalypso, and Deanna Kuhn. 2020. Contemplating the opposition: Does a personal touch matter? Discourse Processes 57(4), 343–359. 166 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Iordanou, Kalypso, and Chrysi Rapanta. 2021. 'Argue with me': A method for developing argument skills. Frontiers in Psychology 12(1): 1– 14. Kolstø, S. D. 2001. Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education 85(3): 291–310. Konstantinidou, Aikaterini, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2013. Understanding students’ reasoning: Argumentation schemes as an interpretation method in science education. Science & Education 22(5): 1069– 1087. Kuhn, Deanna. 1991. The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, Deanna. 2019. Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development 62(3): 146–64. Kuhn, Deanna, Richard, Cheney, and Michael Weinstock. 2000. The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development 15(3): 309–328. Kuhn, Deanna, Jared B. Katz and David Dean, Jr. 2004. Developing reason. Thinking & Reasoning 10(2): 197–219. Kuhn, Deanna, Nicole Zillmer, Amanda Crowell, and Julia Zavala. 2013. Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction 31(4): 456–496. Lazarou, Demetris, Rosamund Sutherland, and Sibel Erduran. 2016. Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research 79(1): 150–66. Lai, Kwok-Wing, and Madeline Campbell. 2018. Developing secondary students’ epistemic agency in a knowledge-building community. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 27(1): 69–83. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi. 2017. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19(2): 148–168. Macagno, Fabrizio, Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus, and Deanna Kuhn. 2015. Argumentation theory in education studies: coding and improving students’ argumentative strategies. Topoi 34(2): 523–537. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Chrysi Rapanta. 2019. The dimensions of argumentative texts and their assessment. Studia Paedagogica 24(4): 11–44. McNeill, Katherine L. 2011. Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48(7): 793–823. Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 167 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. McNeill, Katherine L., and Joseph S. Krajcik. 2011. Supporting grade 5- 8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New Jersey: Pearson. Montanari, Elisabetta. 2019. Educating students to consistency via argumentation. Informal Logic 39(3): 263–286. Muller-Mirza, Nathalie, Valerie Tartas, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, and J. F. De Pietro. 2007. Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2(2–3): 247–272. Murphy, P. Karen, Jeffrey A. Greene, Elisabeth Allen, Sara Baszczewski, Amanda Swearingen, Liwei Wei, and Ana M. Butler. 2018. Fostering high school students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation performance in science through quality talk discussions. Science Education 102(6): 1239–1264. Nielsen, Jan Alexis. 2013. Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education 43(1): 371–393. Nussbaum, E. Michael, Ian J. Dove, Nathan Slife, Carol Anne M. Kardash, Refika Turgut, and David Vallett. 2019. Using critical questions to evaluate written and oral arguments in an undergraduate general education seminar: A quasi-experimental study. Reading and Writing 32(6): 1531–1552. Nussbaum, E. Michael, and Ordene V. Edwards. 2011. Critical questions and argument stratagems: A Framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences 20(3): 443–488. Nussbaum, E. Michael, and Leann G. Putney. 2020. Learning to use benefit-cost arguments: A microgenetic study of argument- counterargument integration in an undergraduate seminar course. Journal of Educational Psychology 112(3): 444–465. Nussbaum, E. Michael, and Gregory Schraw. 2007. Promoting argument– counterargument integration in students’ writing promoting argument–counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education 76(1): 59–92. Nussbaum, E. Michael, Gale M. Sinatra, and Anne Poliquin. 2008. Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education 30(15): 1977–1999. 168 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. O´Connor, M. Catherine, and Sarah Michaels. 1993. Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 24(4): 318-335. O´Connor, M. Catherine, and Sarah Michaels. 1996. Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In Discourse, Learning and Schooling, edited by Deborah Hicks, 66– 103. New York: Cambridge University Press. Osborne, Jonathan F., and Alexis Patterson. 2011. Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education 95(4): 627–38. Ozdem, Yasemin, Hamide Ertepinar, Jale Cakiroglu, and Sibel Erduran. 2013. The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory contex. International Journal of Science Education 35(15): 2559–2586. Rapanta, Chrysi. 2019a. Argumentation strategies in the classroom. Delaware: Vernon. Rapanta, Chrysi. 2019b. Argumentation as critically oriented pedagogical dialogue. Informal Logic 39(1): 1–31. Rapanta, Chrysi, and Douglas Walton. 2016a. Identifying paralogisms in two ethnically different contexts at university level / Identificación de paralogismos en dos contextos universitarios diferenciados étnicamente. Infancia y Aprendizaje 39(1): 119-149. Rapanta, Chrysi, and Douglas Walton. 2016b. The use of argument maps as an assessment tool in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research 79(1): 211–220. Rapanta, Chrysi, and Andri Christodoulou. 2019. Walton’s types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, Online first. Rapanta, Chrysi, Merce Garcia-Mila, and Sandra Gilabert. 2013. What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research 83(4): 483–520. Rapanta, Chrysi, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. “Argumentation Methods in Educational Contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue.” International Journal of Educational Research 79: 142–150. Rapanta, Chrysi, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2019. Evaluation and promotion of argumentative reasoning among university students: The case of academic writing. Revista Lusofona de Educacao 45 (1): 125–42. Reznitskaya, Alina, and Maughn Gregory. 2013. Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist 48(2): 114–33. Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education 169 © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Roberts, Ros, and Richard Gott. 2010. Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socioscientific issue: An aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education 28(3): 203–226. Schwarz, Baruch B., and Michael J. Baker. 2017. Dialogue, argumentation and education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sedova, Klara, Martin Sedlacek, and Roman Svaricek. 2016. Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk. Teaching and Teacher Education 57(1): 14–25. Simon, S Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. 2006. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International journal of science education 28(2-3): 235-260. Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Voss, James F., Rebecca Fincher-Kiefer, Jennifer Wiley, and Laurey Ney Silfies. 1993. On the processing of arguments. Argumentation 7(1): 165–181. Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walton, Douglas. 1990. What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy 87(June 1989): 399–419. Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Walton, Douglas. 1999. Dialectical relevance in persuasion dialogue. Informal Logic 19(1): 119–143. Walton, Douglas. 2005. Pragmatic and idealized models of knowledge and ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly 42(1): 59–69. Walton, Douglas. 2008. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press. Walton, Douglas. 2010a. Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA. Eds Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Guillermo R. Simari, 13–24. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Walton, Douglas. 2010b. Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic 30(2): 159–84. Walton, Douglas. 2013. Methods of argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walton, Douglas, and Thomas F. Gordon. 2012. The carneades model of argument invention. Pragmatics & Cognition 20(1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.1.01wal. 170 Rapanta © Chrysti Rapanta. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2022), pp. 139–170. Walton, Douglas, and Thomas F. Gordon. 2019. How computational tools can help rhetoric and informal logic with argument invention. Argumentation 33(2): 269–95. Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic 36(4): 523–562. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walton, Douglas, Alice Toniolo, and Tim Norman. 2016. Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances. Argument & Computation 7(2–3): 155–73. Walton, Douglas, and Nanning Zhang. 2013. The epistemology of scientific evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21(2): 173–219. Wilkinson, Ian A. G., Alina Reznitskaya, Kristin Bourdage, Joseph Oyler, Monica Glina, Robert Drewry, Min-Young Kim, and Kathryn Nelson. 2017. Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: Changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms. Language and Education 31(1, SI): 65– 82.