Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative Decision-Making in Argumentative Group Discussions Among Primary School Children

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 32))

Abstract

When people have to reach agreement on a given problem, they can rely on various practices and resources. The present study focuses on collaborative processes of group decision-making and investigates the use of argumentative and alternative strategies. This allows to reconstruct the development across different age groups. The analyses are based on video-recorded group discussions among primary school children (grade 2, 4, 6). The results show how the pupils increasingly manage to combine various strategies and cooperatively elaborate the breadth and depth of their argumentation. We also find that younger pupils mainly use argumentation to handle disagreement, while older pupils also start engaging in argumentative elaborations in contexts in which everyone agrees.

We would like to thank the editors and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    It seems that in German-speaking countries, there has been a growing interest in using conversation analytical methodology to study argumentation in (school) contexts, which is why we refer to many studies published in German.

  2. 2.

    The data has been collected in the context of the research project “Argumentative Discourse Skills in School: Contexts, Demands, Acquisition”, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation; project managers are Prof. Dr. Martin Luginbühl, University of Basel and Prof. Dr. Brigit Eriksson, University of Teacher Education Zug; the project was formerly—and at the time of data collection—associated with the University of Neuchâtel.

  3. 3.

    In our project, we also follow a mixed methods approach and are currently working on quantitative analyses, which—in combination with qualitative findings—will allow us to gain new insights into argumentative skills.

  4. 4.

    However, it has been critically noted that in the case of argumentation, it is impossible to conduct purely descriptive analysis because we are informed by definitions and preconceptions about what argumentation is (e.g. Deppermann 2006, 17ff.; Schwarze 2010, 121ff.).

  5. 5.

    Sometimes the lack of response can also be treated as acceptance of an argument because there does not seem to be a need for (further) opposition (e.g. Grundler 2011, 47). Since such cases are ambiguous, our analyses are based on contexts in which observable accounts are available.

  6. 6.

    As discussed above (cf. Sect. 12.2), conversation analytic approaches rely on accounts, i.e. on practices that are actually displayed in interaction. Therefore, we focus on displayed practices of (dis-)agreement. Since it is impossible to say anything about the participants’ intentions or beliefs, it often remains unclear, however, if somebody has been persuaded or not.

  7. 7.

    The children’s names are pseudonyms.

  8. 8.

    Shortly after line 13, Julia again explicitly summarizes their agreement (as already collaboratively done in the presented extract, lines 01-05) and thus introduces the closing of the sequence.

  9. 9.

    The analysis of the given contexts in the video (multimodal expression, context before/after the extract, etc.) allows us to interpret Aysegül’s short turn in line 03 (“you (again)”) as oriented to Tefta’s suggestion to choose the mosquito net (and not, for example, to the action of taking a turn). At least, this seems to be the participant’s understanding: Tefta’s next turn in line 04 (again considering the embodied context) responds to a challenge or objection.

  10. 10.

    It is, however, not clear in that context how to interpret Aysegül’s (fragmentary) turn in line 20. A possible interpretation is that the children should cover and protect themselves with leaves.

  11. 11.

    In contrast to these results, another Swiss study by Fasel Lauzon et al. (2009) has compared discussions among eighth- and twelfth-graders and has found that only the latter were engaging in collaborative argumentation and reflection. Since we have analyzed different data sets, the practices seem to depend on the task environment.

References

  • Antaki, Charles. 1994. Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, Birte. 2015. Kindergartenkinder argumentieren: Peer-Gespräche als Erwerbskontext. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 62 (1): 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Michael. 2009. Argumentative Interactions and the Social Construction of Knowledge. In Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices, ed. Nathalie Muller Mirza, and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, 127–144. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, George P., and Henry B. Huntington. 1925. The Principles of Argumentation, 2nd ed. Boston: Ginn and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, Else M., and Erik C. Krabbe. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. Anthony. 2004. Argument and Its Uses. Informal Logic 24 (2): 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Michal Hamo, and Talia Habib. 2010. Explanations in naturally occurring peer talk: Conversational emergence and function, thematic scope, and contribution to the development of discursive skills. First Language 30 (3&4): 440–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budke, Alexandra, and Michael Meyer. 2015. Fachlich argumentieren lernen: Die Bedeutung der Argumentation in den unterschiedlichen Schulfächern. In Fachlich argumentieren lernen: Didaktische Forschungen zur Argumentation in den Unterrichtsfächern, ed. Alexandra Budke, Miriam Kuckuck, Michael Meyer, Frank Schäbitz, Kirsten Schlüter, and Günther Weiss, 9–28. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, Clark A. 2006. Learning to argue. In Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology, ed. Angela M. O’Donnell, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, and Gijsbert Erkens, 355–383. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, Clark A., and Richard C. Anderson. 1998. The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record 100 (2): 315–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010. Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.

  • Coplan, Robert J., Kathleen Hughes, Sandra Bosacki, and Linda Rose-Krasnor. 2011. Is silence golden? Elementary school teachers’ strategies and beliefs regarding hypothetical shy/quiet and exuberant/talkative children. Journal of Educational Psychology 103 (4): 939–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De La Paz, Susan. 2005. Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology 97: 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Desiderata einer gesprächsanalytischen Argumentationsforschung. In Argumentieren in Gesprächen, 2nd ed, ed. Arnulf Deppermann, and Martin Hartung, 10–26. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doury, Marianne. 2012. Preaching to the converted: Why argue when everyone agrees? Argumentation 26 (1): 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EDK = Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education. 2016. Nationale Bildungsziele für die obligatorische Schule: In vier Fächern zu erreichende Grundkompetenzen. Faktenblatt des Generalsekretariats EDK. http://www.edudoc.ch/static/web/arbeiten/harmos/grundkomp_faktenblatt_d.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2016.

  • Ehlich, Konrad. 2014. Argumentieren als sprachliche Ressource des diskursiven Lernens. In Diskursive und textuelle Strukturen in der Hochschuldidaktik: Deutsch und Italienisch im Vergleich, ed. Antonie Hornung, Gabriella Carobbio, and Daniela Sorrentino, 41–54. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasel Lauzon, Virginie, Simona Pekarek Doehler, and Evelyne Pochon-Berger. 2009. Identification et observabilité de la compétence d’interaction: Le désaccord comme microcosme actionnel. Bulletin VALS-ASLA 89: 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felton, Mark, and Deanna Kuhn. 2001. The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes 32 (2&3): 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frawley, William (ed.). 2006. The Expression of Modality. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Michael A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, Peggy J., and Marilyn Shatz. 1999. When and how peers give reasons: Justifications in the talk of middle school children. Journal of Child Language 26 (3): 721–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry—Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18 (3): 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graumann, Carl F., and Werner Kallmeyer (eds.). 2002. Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundler, Elke. 2010. Argumentieren lernen im Deutschunterricht. Deutsch – Unterrichtspraxis für die Klassen 5 bis 10 22 (1): 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundler, Elke. 2011. Kompetent argumentieren: Ein gesprächsanalytisch fundiertes Modell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundler, Elke, and Rüdiger Vogt. 2009. Diskutieren und Debattieren: Argumentieren in der Schule. In Mündliche Kommunikation und Gesprächsdidaktik, ed. Michael Becker-Mrotzek, 487–511. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Claudia L., and Jesse G. Delia. 1976. Cognitive complexity and social perspective-taking. Communication Monographs 43 (3): 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, Stefan, and Judith Kreuz. in press. Argumentieren im Gespräch: Ein Vergleich von Normorientierungen in didaktischen Settings und empirisch beobachtbaren Praktiken mündlichen Argumentierens von Schulkindern. In Mündlicher Sprachgebrauch zwischen Normorientierung und pragmatischen Spielräumen, eds. Sabine Diao-Klaeger, and Georg Albert. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, Vivien. 2012. Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kindern in Familie und Unterricht: Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, Vivien. 2014. Discursive practices in family dinner talk and classroom discourse: A contextual comparison. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 3 (2): 134–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, Vivien. 2015. Academic discourse practices in action. Invoking discursive norms in mathematics and language lessons. Linguistics & Education 31: 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, John. 2001. Ethno-sciences and their significance for conversation linguistics. In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, vol. 2, ed. Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann, and Sven F. Sager, 908–919. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester, Sally, and Stephen Hester. 2010. Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of a children’s argument. Discourse Studies 12 (1): 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, Antonie. 2014. Studieren im Spannungsfeld zwischen LernenL und LernenF. In Diskursive und textuelle Strukturen in der Hochschuldidaktik: Deutsch und Italienisch im Vergleich, ed. Antonie Hornung, Gabriella Carobbio, and Daniela Sorrentino, 199–223. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hristova, Zoia. 2014. Using peers to assess oral presentations to foster learning. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education 22 (3): 74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, Stephen, Anna Wright, and Cheri Simonds. 2014. Securing the future of communication education: Advancing an advocacy and research agenda for the 21st century. Communication Education 63 (4): 449–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Confrontation talk: Arguments, asymmetries, and power on talk radio. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1989. Building a model of conversational argument. In Rethinking communication, vol. 2, ed. Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella, 153–171. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, Sally, and Elinor Ochs. 1995. Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3): 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquin, Jérôme. 2015. Multimodal counter-argumentation in the workplace: The contribution of gesture and gaze to the expression of disagreement. Gesture and Speech in Interaction (GESPIN) 4: 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquin, Jérôme, and Raphaël Micheli. 2012. Entre texte et interaction: Propositions méthodologiques pour une approche discursive de l’argumentation en sciences du langage. SHS Web of Conferences 1: 599–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jadallah, May, Richard C. Anderson, Kim Nguyen-Jahiel, Brian W. Miller, Kim Il-Hee, Li-Jen Kuo, Ting Dong, and Wu Xiaoying. 2011. Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal 48: 194–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketcham, Victor A. 1917. The Theory and Practice of Argumentation and Debate. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Wolfgang. 1980. Argumentation und Argument. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 38: 9–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • KMK = Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany. 2005. Bildungsstandards im Fach Deutsch für den Primarbereich. Beschluss vom 15.10.2004. München: Wolters Kluwer. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_10_15-Bildungsstandards-Deutsch-Primar.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2016.

  • Komor, Anna. 2010. Miteinander kommunizieren – Kinder unter sich: Eine empirische diskursanalytische Untersuchung zur Ausbildung kindlicher Kommunikationsfähigkeit. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22: 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotthoff, Helga. 2015. Konsensuelles Argumentieren in schulischen Sprechstunden. In Sprachliche Interaktion in schulischen Elterngesprächen, ed. Stefan Hauser, and Vera Mundwiler, 72–98. Bern: hep.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krelle, Michael. 2014. Mündliches Argumentieren in leistungsorientierter Perspektive: Eine empirische Analyse von Unterrichtsdiskussionen in der neunten Jahrgangsstufe. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuz, Judith. in prep. Ko-Konstruiertes Argumentieren in Gruppendiskussionen von Grundschulkindern. In Multilingualism in academic and educational constellations, ed. Jan D. ten Thije, Stefan Sudhoff, Emmeline Besamusca, and Tessa van Charldorp. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuz, Judith, and Vera Mundwiler. 2016. “verbAndskasten !MÜS!sen wir haben;’’: Zum argumentativen Potenzial von Prosodie am Beispiel von Einigungsdiskussionen bei Grundschulkindern. Studia Linguistica 35: 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuz, Judith, Vera Mundwiler, and Martin Luginbühl. 2017. Mündliches Argumentieren im Spannungsfeld zwischen Kollaboration und Abgrenzung: Zu lokalen Gruppenidentitäten in schulischen Einigungsdiskussionen. Bulletin VALS-ASLA No spécial 2017 (2):147–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, Gene H. 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20: 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Lucia. 2001. Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction 11 (4&5): 305–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, Douglas W. 1985. How children start arguments. Language in Society 14 (1): 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, Neil. 2009. Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. Nathalie Muller Mirza, and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, 177–194. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micheli, Raphaël. 2012. Arguing without trying to persuade? Elements for a non-persuasive definition of argumentation. Argumentation 26 (1): 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Max. 2006. Dissens: Zur Theorie diskursiven und systemischen Lernens. Bielefeld: transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mori, Junko. 2004. Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4): 536–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morreale, Sherwyn P., and Judy C. Pearson. 2008. Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education 57 (2): 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morreale, Sherwyn P., and Philip Backlund. 2007. Large Scale Assessment in Oral Communication: P-12 and Higher Education, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/Teaching_and_Learning/Assessment_Resources/PDF-Large_Scale_Assessment_in_Oral_Communication_3rdEd.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2016.

  • Mundwiler, Vera, Judith Kreuz, Stefan Hauser, Brigit Eriksson, and Martin Luginbühl. 2017. Mündliches Argumentieren als kommunikative Praktik: Schulbuchübungen und empirische Befunde im Vergleich. In Gesprächskompetenz in schulischer Interaktion: Normative Ansprüche und kommunikative Praktiken, ed. Stefan Hauser, and Martin Luginbühl, 91–123. Bern: hep.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munneke, Lisette, Jerry Andriessen, Gellof Kanselaar, and Paul Kirschner. 2007. Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (3): 1072–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakahama, Yuko, Andrea Tyler, and Leo Van Lier. 2001. Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly 35 (3): 377–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonnon, Elisabeth. 1996. Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d’exploration. Langue française 112: 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Indiana: University of Notre Dame.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantin, Christian. 1996. Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française 112: 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plantin, Christian. 2012. Persuasion or alignment? Argumentation 26 (1): 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullman, George. 2013. Persuasion: History, Theory, Practice. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, Cordula. 2010. Formen und Funktionen von Topoi im Gespräch: Eine empirische Untersuchung am Schnittpunkt von Argumentationsforschung, Gesprächsanalyse und Sprechwissenschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selting, Margret et al. 2011. A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 (translated and adapted for English by Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2013. Basic Conversation Analytic Methods. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 77–99. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Carl B. 2003. Skills Students Use When Speaking and Listening. ERIC Topical Bibliography and Commentary. Bloomington. In ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480895.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.

  • Spiegel, Carmen. 2006. Unterricht als Interaktion: Gesprächsanalytische Studien zum kommunikativen Spannungsfeld zwischen Lehrern, Schülern und Institutionen. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel, Carmen. 2010. “So habe ich es noch nicht gesehen.” Mehrperspektivisch diskutieren. Deutsch – Unterrichtspraxis für die Klassen 5 bis 10 22 (1): 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas. 2006. Alles Argumentieren, oder was? Zur Konstitution von Argumentationen in Gesprächen. In Argumentieren in Gesprächen, 2nd ed, ed. Arnulf Deppermann, and Martin Hartung, 27–39. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, Tanya. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szczepek Reed, Beatrice. 2012. Beyond the particular: Prosody and the coordination of actions. Language and Speech 55 (1): 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, H. Frans, and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conffiicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, H. Frans, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, Rüdiger. 2002. Im Deutschunterricht diskutieren: Zur Linguistik und Didaktik einer kommunikativen Praktik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vye, Nancy J., Susan R. Goldman, James F. Voss, Cindy Hmelo, and Susan Williams. 1997. Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and Instruction 15 (4): 484–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 2009. Anticipating Objections in Argumentation. In Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Beginning of the XXIst Century, ed. Henrique J. Ribeiro, 87–109. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild, Elke, Uta Quasthoff, Jelena Hollmann, Nantje Otterpohl, Antje Krah, and Sören Ohlhus. 2012. Die Rolle familialer Unterstützung beim Erwerb von Argumentationskompetenz in der Sekundarstufe I. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung 7 (1): 101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadunaisky Ehrlich, Sara. 2011. Argumentative discourse of kindergarten children: Features of peer talk and children-teacher talk. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 25: 248–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadunaisky Ehrlich, Sara, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 2010. Peer talk as a ‘double opportunity space’: The case of argumentative discourse. Discourse and Society 21 (2): 211–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadunaisky Ehrlich, Sara, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 2014. “Now I Said Danny Becomes Danny again”: A Multifaceted View of Kindergarten Children’s Peer Argumentative Discourse. In Children’s Peer Talk: Learning From Each Other, ed. Asta Cekaite, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Vibeke Grøver, and Eva Teubal, 23–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Vera Mundwiler

  2. Pädagogische Hochschule Zug, Zug, Switzerland

    Judith Kreuz

Authors
  1. Vera Mundwiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith Kreuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vera Mundwiler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. English Department, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Steve Oswald

  2. Institute of French Literature, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Thierry Herman

  3. Section of Language and Information Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jérôme Jacquin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mundwiler, V., Kreuz, J. (2018). Collaborative Decision-Making in Argumentative Group Discussions Among Primary School Children. In: Oswald, S., Herman, T., Jacquin, J. (eds) Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73971-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73972-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation