Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches
Tóm tắt
Over the past 20 years, a broad and diverse research literature has emerged to address how students learn to argue through dialogue in educational contexts. However, the variety of approaches used to study this phenomenon makes it challenging to find coherence in what may otherwise seem to be disparate fields of study. In this integrative review, we propose looking at how learning to argue (LTA) has been operationalized thus far in educational research, focusing on how different scholars have framed and fostered argumentative dialogue, assessed its gains, and applied it in different learning contexts. In total, 143 studies from the broad literature on educational dialogue and argumentation were analysed, including all educational levels (from primary to university). The following patterns for studying how dialogue fosters LTA emerged: whole-class ‘low structure’ framing with a goal of dialogue, small-group ‘high structure’ framing with varied argumentative goals, and studies with one-to-one dialectic framing with a goal of persuasive deliberation. The affordances and limitations of these different instructional approaches to LTA research and practice are discussed. We conclude with a discussion of complementarity of the approaches that emerged from our analysis in terms of the pedagogical methods and conditions that promote productive and/or constructive classroom interactions.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
Alexander, R. J. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (5th ed.). Dialogos.
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. J. (2014). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 439–460). Cambridge University Press.
Andriessen, J. E., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145–174). Springer.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & van der Puil, C. (2011). Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations. In S. Ludwigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 222–242). Routledge.
Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2000). Collaborative processes during report writing of a science learning project: The nature of discourse as a function of task requirements. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03172987
Asterhan, C. (2013). Epistemic and interpersonal dimensions of peer argumentation. In M. Baker, J. Andriessen, & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Affective learning together (pp. 251–271). Routledge.
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 374–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
Asterhan, C. S., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02030.x
Asterhan, C. S., Howe, C., Lefstein, A., Matusov, E., & Reznitskaya, A. (2020). Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning. Dialogic Pedagogy, 8. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2020.312
Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. (2010). The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.481013
Aukerman, M., Martin, P. C., Gargani, J., & McCallum, R. D. (2016). A randomized control trial of Shared Evaluation Pedagogy: The near-term and long-term impact of dialogically organized reading instruction. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, 1-26. 10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.02.02
Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., & Blatchford, P. (2009). Improving pupil group work interaction and dialogue in primary classrooms: Results from a year-long intervention study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701960
Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In P. Coirier & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). University of Amsterdam Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_3
Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). Springer.
Beasley, T. M., & Schumacker, R. E. (1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures. Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1995.9943797
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 29, 399–410.
Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857–1882. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, A. C. (2016). Classroom community and discourse: How argumentation emerges during a Socratic circle. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 4. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2016.160
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277
Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21527
Chi, M. T., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns in peer collaboration that promote learning. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 263–274). American Educational Research Association.
Chin, C., & Teou, L. Y. (2009). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students’ argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307–1332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801953179
Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314–332). Taylor & Francis.
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
Chisholm, J. S., & Loretto, A. J. (2016). Tensioning interpretive authority during dialogic discussions of literature. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.02.04
Chiu, M. M. (2008). Effects of argumentation on group micro-creativity: Statistical discourse analyses of algebra students’ collaborative problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.001
Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students’ online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8
Clarà, M. (2021). Conceptually driven inquiry: addressing the tension between dialogicity and teleology in dialogic approaches to classroom talk. Educational Review., 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1923462
Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
Coker Jr., D. L., & Erwin, E. (2011). Teaching academic argument in an urban middle school: A case study of two approaches. Urban Education, 46(2), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910377426
Corcelles Seuba, M., & Castelló, M. (2017). Learning philosophical thinking through collaborative writing in secondary education. Journal of Writing Research, 7(1), 157–199. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.07
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701411567
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
Damico, J., & Rosaen, C. L. (2009). Creating epistemological pathways to a critical citizenry: Examination of a fifth-grade discussion of freedom. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1163–1194.
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1101_3
Dougherty, D., Borrelli, L., Munir, K., & O’Sullivan, A. (2000). Systems of organizational sensemaking for sustained product innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3-4), 321–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0923-4748(00)00028-x
Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.007
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
Felton, M. K. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651595
Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015a). Arguing to agree: Mitigating my-side bias through consensus-seeking dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315590788
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015b). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.689383
Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20482
Forman, E. A., & Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.009
Forman, E. A., Ramirez-DelToro, V., Brown, L., & Passmore, C. (2017). Discursive strategies that foster an epistemic community for argument in a biology classroom. Learning and Instruction, 48, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.005
Frijters, S., ten Dam, G., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.001
Fu, E. L., van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. (2016). Toward a classification of discourse patterns in asynchronous online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 441–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9245-3
Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. K. (2013). The effect of task instructions on students’ use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2857–2878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.663191
Gilbert, M. A. (2004). Emotion, argumentation and informal logic. Informal Logic, 24(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v24i3.2147
Gilbert, M. A. (2013). Coalescent argumentation. Routledge.
Gillies, R. M. (2013). Productive academic talk during inquiry-based science. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 8(2), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480x.2013.767770
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.009
Gillies, R. M., & Haynes, M. (2011). Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9130-9
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8.
Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00251.x
González-Howard, M., McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. M., & Proctor, C. P. (2017). ‘Does it answer the question or is it French fries?’: An exploration of language supports for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 528–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1294785
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10121
Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 535–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0
Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., Broome, B., Hall, T., & Ryan, C. (2015). Investigating the effects of prompts on argumentation style, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9223-1
Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., García-Carrión, R., Torreblanca, O., & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.001
Hoadley, U. (2006). Analysing pedagogy: The problem of framing. Journal of Education, 40(1), 15–34.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1704_2
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher-student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4-5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2015). The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12080
Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004
Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Beker, K. (2016). Argumentative reasoning. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 39–53). Routledge.
Iordanou, K., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., Shi, Y., & Hemberger, L. (2019). Learning by arguing. Learning and Instruction,. Online first, 63, 101207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.004
Jackson, G. B. (1980). Methods for integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 50(3), 438–460.
Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., Kuo, L. J., Dong, T., & Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371498
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M.-P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 91–116). Springer.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9
Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1801_03
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2
Kim, M. Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003
Kim, I. H. (2014). Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680970
Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413419
Klein, P. D., Haug, K. N., & Bildfell, A. (2019). Writing to learn. In S. Graham, C. A. McArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed., pp. 162–184). The Guilford Press.
Koschmann, T. (1999). Towards a dialogic theory of learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to understanding learning in settings of collaboration. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference (pp. 308–313). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 83–90). Kluwer.
Kruger, A. C. (1993). Peer collaboration: Conflict, cooperation, or both? Social Development, 2(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00012.x
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x028002016
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15569530
Kuhn, D. (2018). Building our best future: Thinking critically about ourselves and our world. Wessex.
Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62(3), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500171
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310–1328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447
Kuhn, D., & Zillmer, N. (2015). Developing norms of discourse. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 77–86). American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_6
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.830618
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016a). Argue with me: Developing thinking and writing through dialog. Routledge.
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016b). Tracing the development of argumentive writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33(1), 92–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315617157
Kulatunga, U., Moog, R. S., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer-led sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207–1231.
Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2015). From getting ‘fired’ to becoming a collaborator: A case of the coconstruction of identity and engagement in a project-based mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 53–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.944643
Langer-Osuna, J. M., & Avalos, M. A. (2015). ‘I’m trying to figure this out. Why don’t you come up here?’: Heterogeneous talk and dialogic space in a mathematics discussion. ZDM, 47(7), 1313–1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0735-y
Larrain, A., Howe, C., & Cerda, J. (2014). Argumentation in whole-class teaching and science learning. Psykhe, 23(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.23.2.712
Larrain, A., Freire, P., López, P., & Grau, V. (2019). Counter-arguing during curriculum-supported peer interaction facilitates middle-school students’ science content knowledge. Cognition and Instruction, 37(4), 453–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.
Lee, C. D., & Majors, Y. J. (2003). ‘Heading up the street’: Localised opportunities for shared constructions of knowledge. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360300200160
Lee, S., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring the impact of students’ learning approach on collaborative group modeling of blood circulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9509-5.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022695
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge.
Macagno, F. (2016). Argument relevance and structure. Assessing and developing students’ uses of evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.002
Macagno, F. (2019). Coding relevance. Learning, culture, and social interaction. Online first, 100349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100349
Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Kuhn, D. (2015). Argumentation theory in education studies: Coding and improving students’ argumentative strategies. Topoi, 34(2), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9271-6
Maley, T., Stoll, W., & Demir, K. (2013). Seeing an old lab in a new light: Transforming a traditional optics lab into full guided inquiry. The Physics Teacher, 51(6), 368–371. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4818379
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26(5), 359–389. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003103213786
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual matters.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1i2.137
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507–528. https://doi.org/10.2167/le678.0
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2003). The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students’ mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322591181
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning–mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. (2002). Accountable talk: Classroom conversation that works. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
Micheli, R. (2012). Arguing without trying to persuade? Elements for a non-persuasive definition of argumentation. Argumentation, 26(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9240-9
Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459
Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: Pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.05.003
Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2016). The nature of students’ chemical reasoning employed in scientific argumentation in physical chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00207a
Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2017). Analysis of inquiry materials to explain complexity of chemical reasoning in physical chemistry students’ argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1322–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21407
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.
Muller-Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. Springer.
Muller-Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & de Pietro, J. F. (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), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5
Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. (2016). What REALLY works: Optimizing classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624215
Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013
Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first-to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209599887
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
O’Keefe, D. J. (1992). Two concepts of argument. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 79–90). Foris Publications.
Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20211
Oliveira, D. K. B., Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2015). The use of representations and argumentative and explanatory situations. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1402–1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1039095
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21073
Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846.
Oyler, J. (2019). Exploring teacher contributions to student argumentation quality. Studia Paedagogica, 24(4), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2019-4-8
Plantin, C. (2004). On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Sciences Series, 4(248), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.248.18pla
Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016). Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8
Prawat, R. S. (1991). The value of ideas: The immersion approach to the development of thinking. Educational Researcher, 20(2), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020002003
Rapanta, C. (2019). Argumentation strategies in the classroom. Wilmington: Vernon Press.
Rapanta, C. (2021). Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogical argumentation method across the curriculum?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103404
Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606
Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2019). Pragmatics, education and argumentation: Introduction to the special issue. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100371
Ravenscroft, A. (2000). Designing argumentation for conceptual development. Computers & Education, 34(3-4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00048-2
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., Clarke, S. N., & Schantz, F. (2018). Next generation research in dialogic learning. In G. E. Hall, L. E. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp. 323–338). Wiley.
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952
Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.003
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 63–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer.
Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126). Springer.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
Selcen Guzey, S., & Aranda, M. (2017). Student participation in engineering practices and discourse: An exploratory case study. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20176
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
Simon, S., Naylor, S., Keogh, B., Maloney, J., & Downing, B. (2008). Puppets promoting engagement and talk in science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(9), 1229–1248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701474037
Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students’ dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(4), 381–399.
Sutherland, J. (2006). Promoting group talk and higher-order thinking in pupils by ‘coaching’ secondary English trainee teachers. Literacy, 40(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2006.00436.x
Thiebach, M., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2016). Better to agree or disagree? The role of critical questioning and elaboration in argumentative discourse. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2-3), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000174
Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007). Impact of philosophical enquiry on school students’ interactive behaviour. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2007.03.001
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701524785
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17(4), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026334218681
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34(3-4), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00050-0
Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2016). Arguing against confirmation bias: The effect of argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.009
Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9380-2
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies on how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY press.
Weinberger, A., Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Stegmann, K. (2013). Inducing socio-cognitive conflict in Finnish and German groups of online learners by CSCL script. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9173-4
Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 244–274. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106414
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20092
Yun, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Changes in students’ participation and small group norms in scientific argumentation. Research in Science Education, 45(3), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9432-z
Nussbaum, E. M., Kardash, C. M., & Graham, S. E. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
Zhang, J., Niu, C., Munawar, S., & Anderson, R. C. (2016). What makes a more proficient discussion group in English language learners’ classrooms? Influence of teacher talk and student backgrounds. Research in the Teaching of English, 183–208.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skill through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008