Toulmin Argument

When one of my friends asked me on how to write a Discussion chapter for his thesis, I quickly remembered what my supervisor once told me use: 

Toulmin Argument.

I had no idea of what Toulmin Argument was that time. But later after reading it, I applied this concept into the discussion of my thesis (Interplay between social bonds and metacognition in learning science) to refine my argument and making it more persuasive.

Toulmin Elements

There are 6 parts in Toulin’s model of argument: Claim, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Qualifier, and Rebuttal. 

1. Claim

Claim is the main assertion, conclusion or argument made by the author. 

In my thesis, my Claim was:

Metacognition and social bonds are mutually reinforcing processes. That is, students’ metacognitive engagement in achieving their shared goal/task depends on the quality of their social and emotional connections (or simply social bonds).

This is the central message I have projected in my research backed with evidence and explanations. 

2. Grounds

Grounds refer to evidence and facts that support the claim. 

In my study, I used my findings and the empirical or theoretical reasons to support the claim that social bonds and metacognition are mutually reinforcing. 

For example, my data (evidence) include:

Classroom observations showing that students with secure (intact) bonds engaged more in mutual awareness, collaborative regulation, and shared goal setting to fulfil their collective task or activity. Students with insecure (broken) bonds also manifested metacognition but was less successful in achieving their goal or mutual task as it often led to guarded participation, isolation, and withdrawal from teamwork.

Instances where emotional safety and trust allowed deeper metacognitive dialogue (e.g., students clarifying goals, negotiating strategies, and mutual monitoring).

References to previous studies in metacognition scholarship, supporting the idea that metacognition occurs in social contexts.

Together, my findings evidenced that social and emotional connectedness directly affects metacognitive enactment.

 

3. Warrant

This is the logical reasoning that connects the evidence (Ground) with the main assertion or conclusion (Claim).

The warrant in my thesis was:

Secure (intact) social bonds between students create emotional safety (e.g., building trust, openness, dependence, and emotional attunement) that in turn supports collaborative regulation of thinking. In such contexts, students are encouraged to take cognitive risks which are important for mutual regulation and shared metacognitive engagement. The stronger the bonds, the more socially enacted and productive metacognition becomes.

Through this statement, I explain why my evidence (Ground) justifies my Claim by connecting the two theoretical ideas of social bonds and metacognition using a social bond theory as the bridge.

4. Backing

Backing provides the theoretical or scholarly foundation that strengthens the warrant. It answers the question of why the Warrant itself should be accepted as valid. 

In my work, I have drawn the backing from Social Bond Theory and established metacognition literature.

Social Bond Theory (Scheff, 1997) explains how secure bonds, maintained through emotional attunement, trust, and mutual respect, enable individuals to engage openly without fear of shame or exclusion (alienation). This theoretical position supports the idea that emotional safety is a precondition for shared regulation of thinking.

Similarly, previous metacognition research that focus on social dimensions (e.g., collaborations, group work, peer learning) demonstrates that metacognitive processes are often socially distributed, emerging through dialogue, joint monitoring, and collaborative planning.

Together, I employed these bodies of work to reinforce my Warrant by providing a solid theoretical and empirical basis for linking social bonds with socially enacted metacognition.

 

5. Qualifier 

The Qualifier specifies the conditions under which the Claim holds true. It prevents overgeneralisation by acknowledging that the relationship between variables is not absolute.

          In my study, the Qualifier recognised that the mutually reinforcing relationship between social bonds and metacognition occurs primarily in learning contexts where emotional attunement, mutual respect, and relational stability (intact social bonds) are present.  This means that strong social bonds do not automatically exist in all classrooms, nor do they always lead to productive metacognitive engagement. Rather, their influence is conditional (relational) upon how relationships are enacted and sustained within the learning environment.

 

6. Rebuttal 

The Rebuttal addresses potential counter arguments or exceptions to the Claim. It demonstrates critical awareness by acknowledging situations where the claim may not fully apply.

In my thesis, the Rebuttal acknowledged that metacognition can still occur in groups characterised by insecure or disrupted social bonds. However, in such contexts, metacognitive activity tends to become individualised, cautious, or defensive, making it less social and mutual even if students work together collaboratively to complete the task.  

 

Students may engage in self-monitoring or strategy selection (components of metacognition), but collective regulation is often weakened due to fear of judgement, withdrawal from dialogue, or lack of trust. This limits the depth and effectiveness of shared metacognitive processes, thereby reducing the overall quality of collaborative learning outcomes.

 

By explaining the Backing, Qualifier, and Rebuttal along with the Claim, Grounds, and Warrant, the argument becomes theoretically robust, balanced, and credible. 

This structure enabled my Discussion to move beyond description and towards a nuanced explanation of how and under what conditions social bonds shape metacognitive engagement in science learning.