Structure and content in the quality levels of ethical argumentation in online discussions

Learning to argue about ethical dilemmas and questions is a vital competency for a democratic society, as one’s thoughts and actions must be morally justified. Ethical argumentation is a combination of facts, emotions, and values that considers the consequences of right and wrong based on the values of individuals and communities. It requires support from both critical thinking to argue clearly, use evidence, and from creative thinking to generate new standpoints and solutions. This study developed a model to analyse undergraduate students’ ethical arguments during role play and free debate (n = 199) in asynchronous online discussions in an authentic, non-scaffolded blended-learning classroom. The instructions include the rules for critical discussion to promote respect for diverse opinions and collaboration, and a model of sound argument structure and common fallacies. Theoretical models of ethical argumentation and iterative data analysis were used to identify and evaluate the argumentation structure and content across different levels of quality. The quality of the content and structural complexity varied between acceptable and unacceptable depending on the topic and students’ engagement to argue. A considerable number of low-quality unsubstantiated arguments ‘other structures’ was also observed. The argumentation was generally fair and without personal attack. The number of fallacies and weak arguments was high for the first four of the six studied topics but significantly decreased thereafter. Students considered the ethical consequences across the topics. The results have implications for integrating critical, creative, and ethical thinking into argumentation in computer-supported collaborative learning environments and citizenship education.