When arguing to reach - rather than defend - a conclusion, students are more likely to coconstruct knowledge by exchanging and integrating arguments. These findings are consistent with predictions about the potential of argumentation for knowledge building and suggest that teachers must attend to discourse goals when using argumentation to support learning and reasoning.

No abstract

The present paper deals with how 11 th grade high school students and university undergraduate students studying Environmental Science use evidence to write an argumentative text. They were presented a dilemma with 4 sets of data (2 pro and 2 anti-nuclear energy). Half the sample was given the data in graph format and the other half in table format. The four sets of data differed according to their complexity. We analyzed the structure of argument, the use of the evidence (either provided or their own) according to the participants' position on the dilemma, and the presence of confirmation bias. Our results show a good argumentative competence that does not seem to be affected either by the students' educational level or data format. We observed an effect of the complexity of the data in relation to the participants' position.

No abstract

The inclusion of argumentative practices in classrooms as an epistemic tool to foster learning and reasoning has become widespread. However, studies on argumentation show that not all kinds of argumentation are equally effective in fostering this potential, and that argumentative goals are determining factors in the argumentative discoursein particular, persuasive and deliberative goals, the latter posited as being the ones with the greatest epistemic potential. Eighty students in the Master in Secondary Teacher Training took up positions on an energy dilemma and wrote two argumentative texts, before and after a dialogue with a classmate who defended the opposite thesis. Of the total of 40 dyads, 21 conversed with a persuasive goal and 19 with a deliberative goal. The results show that the dialogue had a positive effect on the argumentative quality under both conditions. However, in the consensus group, the bias of the post-text diminished while meta-statements and counterarguments increased. A case study of one dyad under each condition illustrates these differences.