, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 523–537 | Cite as

Argumentation Theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies

  • Fabrizio Macagno
  • Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus
  • Deanna Kuhn


This paper is aimed at combining the advances in argumentation theory with the models used in the field of education to address the issue of improving students’ argumentative behavior by interacting with an expert. The concept of deeper or more sophisticated argumentative strategy is theoretically defined and used to advance two new coding schemes, based on the advances in the argumentation studies and aimed at capturing the dialectical, or structural, behavior, and the argumentative content of each dialogue unit. These coding schemes are then applied for a qualitative analysis of a study designed to investigate how students’ argumentative behavior can be influenced by the interaction with an expert, who used specific types of attacks to the interlocutors’ positions. The twofold coding shows at which dialogical level expert–peer interactions can directly and more stably affect students’ argumentative behavior, and what effects such more sophisticated strategies can have on the discussion and the analysis of disagreements. In particular, this paper shows how a specific type of deep-level attack, the underminer, can open dialogues of a different level, focused on unveiling and debating background beliefs underlying a specific position.


Argumentation Dialogues Education Conceptual change Persuasion Argumentation schemes 


  1. Alexopoulou E, Driver R (1996) Small-group discussion in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. J Res Sci Teach 33:1099–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ames C (1992) Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. J Educ Psychol 84(3):261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson RC, Nguyen-Jahiel K, McNurlen B, Archodidou A, Kim S, Reznitskaya A (2001) The snowball phenomenon: spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognit Instr 19:1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriessen J (2006) Arguing to learn. In: Sawyer K (ed) Handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 443–459Google Scholar
  5. Asterhan CSC, Schwarz BB (2009) Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognit Sci 33:374–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker M (1999) Argumentation and constructive interaction. In: Rijlaarsdam G, Espéret E, Andriessen J, Coirier P (eds) Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 179–202Google Scholar
  7. Carey S (2000) Science education as conceptual change. J Appl Dev Psychol 21(1):13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi M (2005) Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. J Learn Sci 14:161–199Google Scholar
  9. Chi M, Roscoe R (2002) The process and challenges of conceptual change. In Limon M, Mason L (eds) Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  10. Clark A-M, Anderson RC, Kuo L-J, Kim I-H, Archodidou A, Nguyen-Jahiel K (2003) Collaborative reasoning: expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. Educ Psychol Rev 15:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross D, Taasoobshirazi G, Hendricks S, Hickey DT (2008) Argumentation: a strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. Int J Sci Educ 30(6):837–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowell A, Kuhn D (2014) Developing dialogic argumentation skills: a three-year intervention study. J Cognit Dev 15:363–381Google Scholar
  13. Damer ET (2001) Attacking faulty reasoning—a practical guide to fallacy-free arguments. Wadsworth, Thomson LearningGoogle Scholar
  14. Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84:287–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ducrot O (1972) Dire et ne pas dire. Hermann, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Erduran S (2007) Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In: Erduran S, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP (eds) Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–69Google Scholar
  17. Felton M, Kuhn D (2001) The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Process 32:135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finocchiaro M (2012) Meta-argumentation: prolegomena to a Dutch project. In: van Eemeren FH, Garssen B (eds) Topical themes in argumentation theory. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fogelin RJ (2005) The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Log 25:3–11Google Scholar
  20. Garcia-Mila M, Gilabert S, Erduran S, Felton M (2013) The effect of argumentation task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Sci Educ 97(4):497–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glachan M, Light P (1982) Peer interaction and learning: Can two wrongs make a right? In: Butterworth G, Light P (eds) Social cognition: Studies of the development of understanding. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 238–262Google Scholar
  22. Govier T (1985) A practical study of argument. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewson P (1992) Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at a meeting on “Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching,” National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Ministry for Education and Science, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  24. Hogan K, Nastasi B, Pressley M (1999) Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognit Instr 17(4):379–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiménez-Aleixandre MP (2007) Designing argumentation learning environments. In: Erduran S, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP (eds) Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 91–116Google Scholar
  26. Jucks R, Paus E (2012) What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms. Metacognit Learn 7:91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jucks R, Paus E (2013) Different words for the same concept: learning collaboratively from multiple documents. Cognit Instr 31(2):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim I, Anderson RC, Kim N-J, Archodidou A (2007) Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. J Learn Sci 16(3):333–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koballa T (1992) Persuasion and attitude change in science education. J Res Sci Teach 29(1):63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Konstantinidou K, Macagno F (2013) Understanding students’ reasoning: argumentation schemes as an interpretation method in science education. Sci Educ 22(5):1069–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krabbe ECW (2003) Metadialogues. In: van Eemeren FH, Blair JA, Willard CA, Snoek Henkemans AF (eds) Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krabbe ECW (2007) On how to get beyond the opening stage. Argumentation 21:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kretzmann N, Kenny A, Pinborg J (1982) The Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krippendorf K (2004) Reliability in content analysis. Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Hum Commun Res 30:411–433.
  35. Kuhn D (1991) The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuhn D (1993) Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Sci Educ 77(3):319–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuhn D (2010) Teaching and learning science as argument. Sci Educ 94:810–824Google Scholar
  38. Kuhn D, Crowell A (2011) Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychol Sci 22:545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhn D, Udell W (2003) The development of argumentation skills. Child Dev 74:1245–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuhn D, Udell W (2007) Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Think Reason 13(2):90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuhn D, Shaw V, Felton M (1997) Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognit Instr 15:287–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuhn D, Zillmer N, Crowell A, Zavala J (2013) Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognit Instr 31:456–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuhn D, Hemberger L, Khait V (2014) Argue with me. Wessex, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Leitão S (2000) The potential of argument in knowledge building. Hum Dev 43:332–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Limón M (2001) On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learn Instr 11:357–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Macagno F (2008) Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal Log 28(2):102–128Google Scholar
  47. Macagno F, Walton D (2014) Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Macagno F, Walton D (forthcoming) Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philos Rhetor Google Scholar
  49. Macagno F, Zavatta B (2014) Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation. doi: 10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z
  50. McNeill KL, Krajcik J (2008) Inquiry and scientific explanations: helping students use evidence and reasoning. In: Luft J, Bell R, Gess-Newsome J (eds) Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. National Science Teachers Association Press, Arlington, VA, pp 121–134Google Scholar
  51. Mirza Muller N, Perret-Clermont A-N (eds) (2009) Argumentation and education. Theoretical foundations and practices. Springer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  52. Murray FB (1982) Teaching through social conflict. Contemp Educ Psychol 7:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Naess A (1966) Communication and Argument. Allen & Unwin LTD, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Nussbaum EM (2008a) Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counterargument integration in reflective writing. J Educ Psychol 100:549–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nussbaum EM (2008b) Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: preface and literature review. Contemp Educ Psychol 33:345–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nussbaum EM, Edwards OV (2011) Argumentation, critical questions, and integrative stratagem: enhancing young adolescents’ reasoning about current events. J Learn Sci 20:443–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nussbaum EM, Schraw G (2007) Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. J Exp Educ 76:59–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nussbaum EM, Sinatra GM (2003) Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemp Educ Psychol 28(3):384–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Osborne J (2010) Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328:463–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41(10):994–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paus E, Jucks R (2011) Depressive or just in a bad mood? Laypersons’ assumptions about their knowledge of medical vocabulary. Stud Commun Sci 11:51–70Google Scholar
  62. Paus E, Jucks R (2012) Common ground? How the encoding of specialist vocabulary impacts on Peer-to-Peer Online Discourse. Discourse Process 49(7):565–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paus E, Werner CS, Jucks R (2012) Learning through online peer discourse: structural equation modeling points to the role of discourse activities in individual understanding. Comput Educ 58:1127–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Paus E, Macagno F, Kuhn D (submitted) Development of argumentation strategies via modeling. Discourse ProcessGoogle Scholar
  65. Pera M, Sahea W (1991) Persuading science. Science History Publications, Canton, MAGoogle Scholar
  66. Pollock JL (1974) Knowledge and justification. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  67. Pollock JL (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cognit Sci 11:481–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sandoval WA, Millwood K (2005) The quality of students’ use of evidence inwritten scientific explanations. Cognit Instr 23(1):23–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Simons H, Morreale J, Gronbeck B (2001) Persuasion in society. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  70. Turner D (2006) Critical thinking and intractable disagreement. Philos Educ 224–232Google Scholar
  71. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions: a theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Floris Publications, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  73. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  74. van Laar JA (2014) Criticism in need of clarification. Argumentation. doi: 10.1007/s10503-013-9309-8
  75. Walton D (1984) Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. University Press of America, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  76. Walton D (2005) How to evaluate argumentation using schemes, diagrams, critical questions and dialogues. Stud Commun Sci Argum Dialog Interact 51–74Google Scholar
  77. Walton DN (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Walton D (2007) Metadialogues for resolving burden of proof disputes. Argumentation 21:291–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue. basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  80. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zohar A (2012) Explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge: definitions, students’ learning, and teachers’. Professional development. In: Zohar A, Dori YJ (eds) Metacognition in science education. Contemporary trends and issues in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 197–223Google Scholar
  82. Zohar A, Nemet F (2002) Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. J Res Sci Teach 39(1):35–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zohar A, Ben David A (2008) Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognit Learn 3:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Macagno
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus
    • 2
  • Deanna Kuhn
    • 3
  1. 1.ArgLab, IFL, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e HumanasUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and Sport StudiesWWU MünsterMünsterGermany
  3. 3.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations