Argumentation and Learning



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.


Critical reasoning Shared Understanding Learning from interaction Emergent Learning 


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments. Dordecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing – The social organization of accounts. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and Thinking. A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Bruner, J. (1982). The formats of language acquisition. American Journal of Semiotics, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Chi, M.T.H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Dawes, L., Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking Together: A Programme of Activities for Developing Thinking Skills at KS2. Birmingham: Questions Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Duval, R. (1991). Structure du raisonnement déductif et apprentissage de la démonstration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisenberg, A., Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferro, M. (1984). The use and abuse of history, or, how the past is taught. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Funkenstein, A. (1989). Collective memory and historical consciousness. History and Memory, 1(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Glassner, A., Schwarz, B.B. (2005). The Antilogos ability to evaluate information supporting arguments. Learning and Instruction, 15, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 443–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greeno, J.G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Hanson, N.R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Hershkowitz , R. , Schwarz , B.B. (1999) . Reflective processes in a technology-based mathematics classroom . Cognition and Instruction, 17 , 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Hoyles, C., & Kücheman, D. (2002). Students’ understanding of logical implication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(3), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Kruger, A.C. (1993). Peer collaboration: conflict, cooperation or both? Social Development, 2, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know. Psychological Science, 12, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  54. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Maynard, D. (1985). How students start arguments. Language in Society, 14, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Miller, M. (1987). Argumentation and Cognition. In M. Hickman (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  61. Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (1998) Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Mortimer, E. and Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nash, G.B., & Dunn, R.E. (1995). History standards and culture wars. Social Education, 59(1), 5–7.Google Scholar
  65. Naveh, E., & Yogev, E. (2002). Histories: Towards a Dialog with Yesterday. (Hebrew) Tel-Aviv, Israel: Bavel.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Nickerson, R. (1986). Reflections on reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle réthorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Pólyà (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. Sandoval, W.A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. Schwarz, B.B. (2003). Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities. The International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. Schwarz, B.B. (2008). Escalate: The White Book.
  91. 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
  92. Siegel , H. (1989) . The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education . Synthese , 80 (1) , 9–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. Taylor, C. (1996). Doing Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  98. Teasley, S.D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tessler, M., & Nelson, K. (1994). Making memories: The influence of joint encoding on later recall. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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
  101. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. 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
  103. 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
  104. 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
  105. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  106. 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
  107. Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  108. 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
  109. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. The Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zeidler, D.L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations