## Abstract

This chapter provides multiple perspectives on the intricate relations between argumentation and learning. Different approaches to learning impinge on the way argumentation is conceived of: as a powerful vehicle for reaching shared understanding, as a set of skills pertaining to critical reasoning, or as a tool for social positioning. Each perspective has harvested empirical studies that have stressed the importance of argumentation in learning. Methodological tools that fit the respective perspectives are reviewed. In spite of the pluralistic stance adopted, this chapter attempts to draw connections between the findings obtained in the different perspectives. In a separate part, it considers the specific role of argumentation in learning processes and outcomes for four subjects areas: in mathematics, studies are presented that show deep gaps between argumentation and proof. In science, experimental studies are reviewed to examine whether and how argumentation promotes conceptual change. In history, the chapter considers the role of argumentation in challenging narratives and in claiming a position. At last, we describe the new wave that characterizes civic education programs towards the instillation of argumentative practices in democratic citizenship.

### Keywords

Critical reasoning Shared Understanding Learning from interaction Emergent Learning### References

- Aberdein, A. (2006). The informal logic of mathematical proof. In R. Hersh (Ed.), Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics (pp. 56–70). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Alexopoulou, E., Driver, R. (1997). Small group discussions in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099c1114.Google Scholar
- Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments. Dordecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing – The social organization of accounts. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Asterhan, C.S.C., Schwarz, B.B. (2007). The effects of dialogical and monological argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Atzmon, S., Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B.B. (2006). The role of teachers in turning claims to arguments. In J. Novotna (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 30th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 5, pp. 65–72). Prague.Google Scholar - Baker, M. (1999) Argumentative interactions, discursive operations, and learning to model in science. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
- Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Utrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and Thinking. A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Boulter, C.J., Gilbert, J.K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. S. M. Costello and S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and Consensual Voices: The theory and Practice of Argumentation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
- Bruner, J. (1982). The formats of language acquisition. American Journal of Semiotics, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
- Chi, M.T.H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In Glaser, R. (Ed), Advances in Instructional Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M.W., Reimann, P., Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chi, M.T.H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
- Chinn, C.A., Brewer, W.F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dawes, L., Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking Together: A Programme of Activities for Developing Thinking Skills at KS2. Birmingham: Questions Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Douek, N. (1999). Argumentation and conceptualization in context: A case study on sunshadows in primary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Druker, S.L., Chen, C., Kelly, G.J. (1996). Introducing content to the Toulmin model of argumentation via error analysis. Paper presented at NARST meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Duval, R. (1991). Structure du raisonnement déductif et apprentissage de la démonstration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eisenberg, A., Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ferro, M. (1984). The use and abuse of history, or, how the past is taught. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Fischbein, E., Kedem, I. (1982). Proof and Certitude in the Development of Mathematical Thinking. In A. Vermandel (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(pp. 128–31). Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen.Google Scholar - Funkenstein, A. (1989). Collective memory and historical consciousness. History and Memory, 1(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
- Galston, W. (1995). Liberal virtues and the formation of civic character. In M. A. Glendon and D. Blankenhorn (Eds.), Seedbeds of virtue. New York: Madison books.Google Scholar
- Glassner, A., Schwarz, B.B. (2005). The Antilogos ability to evaluate information supporting arguments. Learning and Instruction, 15, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B.B., Porat, D. (2008). Living and dormant collective memories as contexts of history learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 443–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Greeno, J.G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
- Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B.B. (2002). Between Task Design and Students’ Explanations in Geometrical Activities. Canadian Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(4), 529–552.Google Scholar
- Hanson, N.R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Herrenkohl, L.R., Guerra, M.R. (1995). Where did you find your theory in your findings? Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Paper presented at AERA annual meeting.Google Scholar
- Hershkowitz , R. , Schwarz , B.B. (1999) . Reflective processes in a technology-based mathematics classroom .
*Cognition and Instruction*, 17 , 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions.
*Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, 38(6), 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions.
*Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, 38(6), 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hoyles, C., & Kücheman, D. (2002). Students’ understanding of logical implication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(3), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hynd, C.R. (1999). Teaching students to think critically using multiple texts in history. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(6), 428–436.Google Scholar
- Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos J.P., Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Bugallo Rodriguez, A., Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in High School Genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kruger, A.C. (1993). Peer collaboration: conflict, cooperation or both? Social Development, 2, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb and H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, D. (1996). Is good thinking scientific thinking? In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 261–281). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know. Psychological Science, 12, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lemke, J. (1990).
*Talking science: Language, learning and values*. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar - Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Mani-Ikan, E. (2000). Writing as a tool for learning biology: A model for learning biology through writing skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hebrew university of Jerusalem: Jerusalem.Google Scholar
- Maynard, D. (1985). How students start arguments. Language in Society, 14, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Means, M.L., & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
- Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom.
*British Educational Research Journal*, 25(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Miller, M. (1987). Argumentation and Cognition. In M. Hickman (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
- Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (1998)
*Beyond 2000: Science education for the future*. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar - Minstrell, J. & van Zee, E.H. (Eds.)
*Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science*. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar - Mortimer, E. and Scott, P. (2003).
*Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms*, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar - Nash, G.B., & Dunn, R.E. (1995). History standards and culture wars. Social Education, 59(1), 5–7.Google Scholar
- Naveh, E., & Yogev, E. (2002). Histories: Towards a Dialog with Yesterday. (Hebrew) Tel-Aviv, Israel: Bavel.Google Scholar
- Neuman, Y., & Schwarz, B.B. (1998). Is self-explanation while solving problems helpful? The case of analogical problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Neuman, Y., & Schwarz, B.B. (2000). Substituting one mystery for another: The role of self-explanations in solving algebra word-problems. Learning and Instruction, 10, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nickerson, R. (1986). Reflections on reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Norris, S.P. & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy.
*Science Education*, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Osborne, J. Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science.
*Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle réthorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
- Perfetti, C.A., Britt, M., Rouet, J.F., Georgi, M.C., Mason, R.A. (1994). How students use texts to learn and reason about historical uncertainty. In J. F. Voss and M. Carretero (Eds), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 257–283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Pólyà (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Pólyà, G. (1954).
*Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning*(vol. I, Induction and Analogy in Mathematics, and vol. II, Patterns of Plausible Inference). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing for reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. In E. De Corte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier, P. Span (Eds.), Learning and Instruction: A Publication of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (vol. 1, pp. 71–82). Oxford: EARLI.Google Scholar
- Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Resnick, L.B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C.M., Wathen, S.H., Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rogoff, B. (1993). Children’s guided participation and participatory appropriation in sociocultural activity. In R. Woxniak & K. Fischer (Eds.),
*Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments*(pp. 121–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Series Ed) and D. Kuhn (Vol Ed), Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 4, 5th Ed (679–744). NewYork: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Sandoval, W.A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A.H. (1986). On Having and Using Geometric Knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics (pp. 225–64). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B.B. (2003). Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities. The International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schwarz, B.B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Utrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B.B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and of argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction. The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 310–331.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B.B., Neuman, Y., Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right…if they argue together. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schwarz, B.B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 221–258.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B.B. (2008).
*Escalate: The White Book*. www.escalate.org.il - Schwarz, B.B., Perret-Clermont, A-N., Trognon, A., Marro, P. (2008). Learning processes within and between successive activities in a laboratory context. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(1), 57–87.Google Scholar
- Siegel , H. (1989) . The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education . Synthese , 80 (1) , 9–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Simon, S. Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.
*International Journal of Science Education*, 28(2-3), 235–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stein, N.L., & Miller, C.A. (1991). I win – You lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, J. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Instruction (pp. 265–290). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Stein, N.L., & Miller, C.A. (1993). A theory of argumentative understanding: Relationships among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory and reasoning. Argumentation, 7(2), 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stein, N.L., & Trabasso, T. (1985). Children’s understanding of stories: a basis for moral jusgment and dilemma resolution. In C. Biainerd and M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal Processes in Children: Progress in Cognitive Development Research (pp. 161–188). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C. (1996). Doing Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
- Teasley, S.D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tessler, M., & Nelson, K. (1994). Making memories: The influence of joint encoding on later recall. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tetlock, P. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Trognon, A. (1999). Eléments d’analyse interlocutoire. In M. Gilly, J-P. Roux and A. Trognon (Eds.),
*Apprendre dans l’interaction*(pp. 69–94). Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar - Vygotsky, L.S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: Sharpe.Google Scholar
- Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wineburg, S. (2001).
*Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past*. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar - Williams, J.M., & Tolmie, A. (2000). Conceptual change in biology: Group interaction and the understanding of inheritance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
- Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. The Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeidler, D.L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar