While scientific evidence on argumentation among preschool children is on the rise, it is dispersed over a number of different fields, which may obfuscate its visibility, merit and potential. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing research and, as such, shed more concerted theoretical and empirical light on the origins as well as early development of the human capacity to argue. Based on 56 included studies, we show that it has been approached from numerous theoretical perspectives, with the dialogic view of argumentation and a productive eclecticism between argumentation, developmental, learning and linguistic theories as the main theoretical denominators. The review also documents that young children’s argumentation displays a range of structural-discursive, socio-interactional and developmental features, positioning them as argumentative agents in their own right. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of further theory-building and their practical significance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.