legal studies 79
Provoking students into thinking
Fiona Patterson In this article, Dr Fiona Patterson discusses how the The University of Melbourne technique of argument mapping, which involves the and Austhink visual representation of reasoning, can be used to enhance students’ understanding of Legal Studies content while increasing their critical thinking skills. The contentious partial defence of provocation, which has been abolished, is used to illustrate argument mapping. Argument maps provided in this article were created with Rationale, a software program developed by Austhink. Colour versions are provided in a Compak supplement together with a list of references on the abolition of the provocation defence.
Go to ComNET
Introduction 5 communication of the reasoning structure, evaluate the claims and then Teaching students the extensive Legal and evaluation thereof into a clear formulate a well-argued essay. Studies curriculum within our limited and structured format. An argument is a set of claims with time frame is challenging. There are a structured relationship that seeks (at least) two challenges that face the Critical thinking and argument maps to support or refute a given position teacher: (1) teaching the content for The typical format for the presentation or contention. An argument map is a the Legal Studies curriculum and (2) of ideas is prose, such as newspapers, visual representation of an argument teaching the skills to think critically books and Internet resources. The that immediately identifies claims as about legal issues. These challenges are problem that we face with this format the position or contention, reasons and often considered as separate outcomes, is that identifying the contention and objections (see Figure 1). Moreover, it with the belief that one is taught at the reasons is often difficult because reveals the structure between various the expense of the other. This article the prose is not well structured claims; that is, an argument map will suggest that the two challenges are nor sufficiently clear. Likewise, our illustrates whether a reason supports closely interwoven and that learning students’ essays often indicate this another reason or whether it directly critical thinking skills will enhance problem. The distinction between a supports the position or contention. the ability of students to learn and good student and an average one is the Viewing an argument in such a manner understand content. degree to which they can reason and enables us to visually follow a line of communicate in a clear and systematic reasoning. We are then in a position What is critical thinking? manner. The challenge for the teacher to undertake an evaluation process Critical thinking is the art of being is to impart the required knowledge, to identify which claims are true and right! It involves systematic reasoning but to do so in such a manner that whether they support the reason or in order to make good judgements. As it scaffolds the students’ ability to objection they are intended to support such, it involves five main stages: identify the reasoning, understand its or refute (see Figure 2). 1 research to gather good information from reputable sources Figure 1: basic argument map model 2 structure of information to ensure that the relationships between ideas are disclosed 3 analysis to ascertain if the ideas are logically structured and to reveal any hidden assumptions 4 evaluation of the reasoning to ascertain whether a claim is true or false and whether the contention should be accepted or rejected 80 COMPAK 2007 • Issue 1 • February
Figure 2: structure of an argument map
An argument is a set of claims with a structured relationship that seeks to support or refute a given position or contention, for example the above map shows reasons and objections bearing upon the contention that ‘Legal Studies is an important subject’.
The benefits of argument mapping evaluating and communicating this whether they provide support for Using an argument mapping approach legal issue. another claim. The map utilises colour to teach critical thinking enhances The argument map in Figure 3 (see Compak supplement), shape critical thinking skills more than four considers the contention that the and icons to indicate where a claim times standard university tuition.1 provocation defence should have been is true and provides good reason to Such gains are not limited to learners removed. It illustrates three main support another claim. The benefit with a visual–spatial intelligence. The reasons: (1) that the provocation of these visual cues is to immediately mapping format takes advantage of defence was gender biased, (2) that identify good reasons from bad ones our cognitive capacities for visual the provocation defence produced while showing at a glance whether the apprehension. It assimilates complex unjust outcomes, and (3) that the contention is accepted or rejected. arguments in a format that reduces provocation defence ‘belonged to our cognitive burden. This enables a bygone era when community Activities with argument mapping: our students to visualise their thinking values were different’. Each of these argument chess process and to see different viewpoints reasons (coloured green in Compak There are various activities that can and evaluation with ease. supplement) are given further support be integrated in your Legal Studies by reasons positioned underneath. The classroom to practice critical- Argument maps and Legal Studies: shaded box on the left of the map (red thinking skills.3 One such activity is the provocation defence box in coloured version in Compak ‘argument chess’ where a conventional The provocation defence and the supplement), which states ‘Women chessboard is replaced with the recent changes in the law in Victoria have been more successful than men in construction of an argument map, represent a great learning opportunity using the provocation defence’, is an either on a projected computer screen and focus for Unit 1 (Outcomes 1 objection that seeks to refute the claim or manually on a whiteboard. For each and 2); Unit 2 (Outcome 3); Unit above it. The icons indicate the type of class, or group of students where class 3 (Outcomes 1 and 3) and Unit 4 evidence or source for the information numbers are high, a topic is chosen (Outcome 2). The issue is a complex to which it is attached, such as ‘expert and a supporting and opposing team one and can be presented in a map opinion’, ‘case studies’ and ‘data’. established. Possible topics include: format to enable students to clearly Having assembled the various individuals cannot significantly see the arguments that are central to claims and provided a structure for influence the law; law-making power the change in the law.2 This provides the reasoning, we are now able to should reside solely with parliament; the structure for deeper understanding evaluate the argument—to determine going to court should be avoided; the of the issue together with a means of which claims are true and if so, jury system should be abolished; the legal studies 81
Figure 3: an argument map relating to the defence of provocation
This argument map considers the contention that the defence of provocation should have been removed. adversary system of trial ensures a process, determining which reasons balancing the strength of reasons fair trial; or that the legal system will are well supported and which ones are versus the strength of the objections. always be a problem. inadequate. For instance, the teacher Such a process ensures that all claims The aim is to create the strongest starts by looking at the first top-level are considered in relation to other argument, which means providing the reason and the reasons that support, claims and that a balanced, systematic best reasons to support a position and and/or the objections that refute, this evaluation of the main contention is providing counter arguments to the claim. Having read down this branch undertaken. opposing position. The game proceeds or line of reasoning, an evaluation by one person from each team making is made in the first instance for the My experience one move at a time, that is, adding foundation claims. The question to Argument chess is a popular and fun one reason or one objection to the be asked is, ‘Is this a good reason to peer-learning activity. If an engaging argument map to build and strengthen support the claim above?’ Having topic is chosen, or one that has some their case (see Figure 4). ascertained if the reason provides amusement value (such as ‘All laws This process is similar to acting ‘strong’, ‘weak’ or ‘nil’ support, then a should be changed’), then students as the prosecution and defence in a decision is made upon the higher level become highly motivated and enjoy court case, where the opposing side reason. Again, we ask, ‘Given the level the challenge of the activity. From a can challenge a reason by raising an of support provided by the reasons teacher’s perspective, the development objection or rebuttal. This requires below, is this claim a good reason of reasoning, evaluation skills and knowledge of content and reasoning for the claim above?’ (This could be review of content understanding is skills and encourages the students to another higher level reason or the the success of argument chess. The strategically select the best reasons contention.) students must compile reasons for and/or objections to provide a strong This process continues for each a given case while structuring them case. line of reasoning until all top-level in a coherent and logical manner. reasons and objections are evaluated. Moreover, they must consider the Evaluating an argument map Finally, we can ask, ‘Given the main reasons their opponents will The evaluation or assessment of an strength of these primary reasons and use, and think about how they argument map can be undertaken by objections, will we accept or reject the may object or rebut these reasons/ the teacher who models the evaluation contention?’ This decision involves objections. 82 COMPAK 2007 • Issue 1 • February
Figure 4: an example of the use of argument chess
An example of the use of argument chess, based on the contention, ‘Marriage laws should recognise gay couples’.
Due to the limited time and the relationship between reasons critical thinking’, in Teaching therefore moves that are available to and a contention. Practising Philosophy, June 2004; also at be made, the students must also learn argument mapping facilitates the