No abstract

The need to enhance argument skills through education has become increasingly evident during the last 20 years. This need has resulted in an ongoing discussion that focuses on students' and teachers' argumentation, and its support. However, apart from the extended competence-based discourse, no clear and homogeneous definition exists for argumentative competence and its constituent skills. To respond to this deficiency, we conducted an integrative literature review focusing on the methods of argument analysis and assessment that have been proposed thus far in the field of education. Specifically, we constructed an interpretative framework to organize the information contained in 97 reviewed studies in a coherent and meaningful way. The main result of the framework's application is the emergence of three levels of argumentative competence, namely, metacognitive, metastrategic, and epistemological competence. We consider this result the beginning of further research on the psycho-pedagogical nature of argument skills and their manifestation as competent performance.

Researchers in science education have converged on the view that argumentation can be an effective intervention for promoting knowledge construction in science classrooms. However, the impact of such interventions may be mediated by individuals' task goals while arguing. In argumentative discourse, one can distinguish two overlapping but distinct kinds of activity: dispute and deliberation. In dispute the goal is to defend a conclusion by undermining alternatives, whereas in deliberation the goal is to arrive at a conclusion by contrasting alternatives. In this study, we examine the impact of these discourse goals on both content learning and argument quality in science.Résumé: Les chercheurs dans les sciences d'éducation se convergent sur l'idée que l'enseignement de l'argumentation peut être une intervention efficace pour promouvoir la construction des connaissances dans l'enseignement des sciences. Cependant l'impact de telles interventions peut être influencé par les buts d'une tâche d'un individu pendant qu'il argumente. On peut différecier dans un discours d'arguments deux types d'activités qui se chevauchent mais qui se distinguent: le désaccord et la délibé-ration. Le but dans un désaccord est d'arriver à une conclusion en sapant les alternatives, tandis que dans la délibération le but est d'arriver à une conclusion en comparant les alternatives. Dans cette étude nous examinons l'impact de ces buts sur l'apprentissage du contenu et sur la qualité des arguments dans les sciences.

ABSTRACT:In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on the argumentative task goal. In dispute the goal is to defend a conclusion by undermining alternatives, whereas in deliberation the goal is to arrive at a conclusion by contrasting alternatives. In this study, we examine the impact of these tasks goals on the quality of argumentative discourse. Sixty-five junior high school students were organized into dyads to discuss sources of energy. Dyads were formed by members who had differing viewpoints and were distributed to one of two conditions: 31 dyads were asked to discuss with the goal to persuade the partner, and 34 were asked to reach consensus. Argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on Toulmin (1958). Eleven different argumentative structures resulted from the combination of Toulmin's basic elements. Students in the consensus group scored significantly higher than students in the persuasion Correspondence to:

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.