Paulina Freire

Academic reading is a challenging activity for many undergraduate students, particularly during their transition to higher education (Bazerman, 2017). Disciplinary texts use abstract concepts and l...

Different studies suggest that collaborative argumentation among peers promotes school learning, especially the comprehension of concepts. However, the available evidence shows that the relationship between argumentation and learning is not direct but instead mediated by development processes that, in turn, promote learning. The goal of this study is to understand the mediating role that the development of argumentative inner speech may play in the process of constructing knowledge through collaborative argumentation. A case study was conducted in which one child (fourth grade) was tracked throughout an entire unit in which he and his peers argued collaboratively class after class. We assessed the students individually before and after in their learning (oral and written) and written argumentation skills. The collaborative work from all the classes was videoed and analysed through discourse analysis. The student showed significant progress in both delayed learning and written argumentation compared to the group. Furthermore, the analysis of oral tests shows that the argumentative interactions that initially appeared in the discussions among peers were internalized so he could understand the concepts involved on an individual level. The article discusses the implications of these results in understanding the role of discursive interactions in school learning processes.

The purpose of this study was to explore the nature, emergence and maintenance of episodes of shared regulation and their relationship with argumentative discourse during collaborative work in the sciences. It consisted of an exploratory case study that tracked two groups in the fourth year of primary school (eight participants) through four collaborative activities. The sessions were filmed and analysed for their social regulation and argumentative discourse patterns. The frequency and length of the episodes identified and the association between regulation and argumentation were examined. Additionally, all the episodes of shared regulation of fundamental aspects of the task were further analysed. The results showed that argumentation was significantly associated with shared regulation and that counter-arguments were present when regulation focused on understanding the content. Disagreement within the group, individual regulatory behaviours and the characteristics of the activities appeared as relevant dimensions in the emergence and maintenance of the episodes of regulation of fundamental aspects of the task. The implications for educational practice and research are discussed.

Peer argumentation, especially the discussion of contrary points of view, has experimentally been found to be effective in promoting science content knowledge, but how this occurs is still unknown. The available explanations are insufficient because they do not account for the evidence showing that gains in content knowledge are unrelated to group outcomes and are still evident weeks after collaboration occurs. The aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between peer-group argumentation and science content knowledge learning. A total of 187 students (aged 10 to 11 years) from 8 classrooms participated in the study, with the classrooms spread across 8 public schools, all located in Santiago, Chile. We conducted a quasi-experimental study randomized at school-class level. Four teachers delivered science lessons following a teaching program especially developed to foster dialogic and argumentative classroom talk (the intervention group), and four teachers delivered lessons in their usual way (the control group). Students were assessed individually using both immediate and delayed post-test measures of science content knowledge. The results showed no differences in pre- to post-immediate content knowledge between conditions. However, the intervention-group students increased their content knowledge significantly more than the control-group students between post-immediate and post-delayed tests. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that, after controlling for school-level variables, time working in groups, and scores in the pretest, the formulation of counter arguments, although occurring in both groups, significantly predicted delayed gains in the intervention group only. Moreover, the frequency of counterarguments heard by students during the group work did not make a difference. Focal analysis of one small-group work suggests that teachers’ instructional practice may have contributed to the consolidation of students’ knowledge at an individual level in a post-collaborative phase.

Experimental evidence has shown the effect of peer‐group argumentation on scientific concept development. However, questions regarding how and why it happens remain. The aim of this study is to contribute, with experimental evidence gathered in naturalistic settings (classrooms), to the understanding of the relationship between peer‐group argumentation and content knowledge learning, exploring the role that individual argumentative skills play. In total, sixty‐one fourth‐grade students (aged 9–10 years) participated in the study (thirty‐nine female). One teacher was invited to teach a thematic unit (Forces), with lesson plans especially developed to foster argumentation in the classroom. The second teacher taught as usual. Students’ conceptual understanding and argumentative skills were evaluated individually, both before and after the lessons. Although there were no differences in the immediate post‐test scores between groups (after controlling for pre‐test), the intervention group showed significantly higher scores in delayed post‐tests. Regression analyses showed that the ratio of argumentative utterances per minute of group work predicted students’ scores in delayed post‐test disciplinary content knowledge after controlling for initial levels of learning. Argumentation skill gains did not impact learning, but initial levels of argumentation skills predicted delayed scientific content knowledge post‐test.

Dialogic teaching, specifically the use of argumentation in teaching, is seen as promoting scientific literacy and understanding. However, international evidence consistently shows that the prevail...

La habilidad para argumentar es fundamental para la inserción en sociedad. Sin embargo, la evidencia sugiere que los sistemas escolares muestran poca capacidad para promover el desarrollo de estas habilidades. En parte, esto se debe a la dificultad para medirla y reconocer su progreso. El objetivo de este estudio fue construir un instrumento para medir habilidades de argumentación escrita en niños y niñas de quinto básico que asisten a establecimientos municipales del sector poniente de la Región Metropolitana de Santiago. Participaron 154 estudiantes chilenos (77 niñas). Se encontró evidencia que apoya la confiabilidad del instrumento y su capacidad de informar el nivel de desarrollo de distintas dimensiones de la habilidad de argumentación escrita. Con respecto al desempeño de los estudiantes, coherente a lo esperado, la mayoría de los estudiantes son capaces de elaborar opiniones y argumentos simples y comprender contra-argumentos. Sin embargo, presentan claras dificultades para elaborar contra-argumentos.