Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories

Abstract

There is increasing consensus among psycho-educational scholars about argumentation as a means to improve student knowledge and understanding of subject matter. In this article, we argue that, notwithstanding a strong theoretical rationale, causal evidence is not abundant, definitions of the objects of study (argumentation, learning) are often not well defined, and the variance in research methods is large. We argue that we systematically review the available research evidence by mapping it on the Argumentation For Learning research framework, which specifies the different antecedents, dialogue characteristics, and learning outcomes of argumentation. In doing so, we identify claims that are supported with substantive empirical evidence and demonstrate which questions are still open to further empirical examination. We also uncover several promising, relatively unexplored venues for future research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Christof Wecker for insightful comments on parts of this review and Clark Chinn and several anonymous reviewers for their thorough and critical reading of different versions of the manuscript.

Notes

¹ The term “argumentive” was coined by Deanna Kuhn (1991) in her pioneering book The Skills of Argument to stress that skillful argumentation is aimed at elaborating arguments. Although our view of argumentation in this article is more compound, our focus on argumentation for learning confers precedence to the ideational perspective. We hence use the term “argumentive” rather than the term “argumentative.”