Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of the Teacher in Promoting Argumentative Interactions in the Learning Contexts of Higher Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts

Abstract

This study centers on the learning context of higher education and sets out to examine the types of questions used by the teacher with their students during regular lessons. The aim is to bring to light the strict relationship between the types of questions asked by the teacher and the beginning and development of argumentative disciplinary discussions in the classroom, i.e., task-related discussions concerning the discipline taught in the course. The data corpus is composed of 16 video-recorded separate lessons of one graduate-level course in Developmental Psychology. The results of this study indicate that the teacher during disciplinary discussions in the classroom asked to her graduate students SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, i.e., questions that refer to a specific theory or to a certain aspect of a theory in the field of Developmental Psychology, more often than BROAD QUESTIONS, i.e., questions that refer to broad topics in the field of Developmental Psychology. In particular, the BROAD QUESTIONS were typically used in an initial phase of the discussion, having the scope to promote the beginning of an argumentative discussion with and among students on the topic discussed during the lesson. On the other hand, the SPECIFIC QUESTIONS were typically asked by the teacher after the BROAD QUESTIONS and when the argumentative discussion was started, and the students had already advanced their opposite standpoints. Interestingly, in the corpus, only the SPECIFIC QUESTIONS favored the use of arguments based on scientific notions and theories by students, while the arguments used by students to answer to the BROAD QUESTIONS asked by their teacher were in most cases based on common knowledge or their personal experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Eurydice Network provides information on and analyses of European education systems and policies. As from 2013, it consists of 40 national units based in all 36 countries participating in the EU’s Lifelong Learning programme. It is coordinated and managed by the EU Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) in Brussels, which drafts its studies and provides a range of online resources. For more information, see http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.php.

  2. 2.

    This course provides an overview of the theories, concepts, issues, and research in the fields of human development and developmental psychopathology. It also traces how the field of developmental psychopathology emerged out of the need to consider child and adolescent disorders from a developmental perspective.

  3. 3.

    The CHAT system provides a standardized format for producing computerized transcripts of face-to-face conversational interactions for the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES). The system provides options for basic discourse transcription as well as detailed phonological and morphological analyses. Verbal utterances and nonverbal expressions with a clear communicative function relevant to the meal activity were identified in the transcription.

References

  • Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6(4), 379–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. (2009). A case study of argumentation at undergraduate level in history. Argumentation, 23(4), 547–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APA. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • APA. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcidiacono, F., & Bova, A. (2015a). A study of the arguments used by undergraduate and graduate students during disciplinary discussions in the classroom. In R. V. Nata (Ed.), Progress in education (Vol. 33, pp. 31–50). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcidiacono, F., & Bova, A. (2015b). Activity-bound and activity-unbound arguments in response to parental eat-directives at mealtimes: Differences and similarities in children of 3–5 and 6–9 years old. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 40–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Osborne, J., Erduran, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303–324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 127–144). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. (2013). Investigating children’s Why-questions. A study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. Discourse Studies, 15(6), 713–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. (2014). “You must eat the salad because it is nutritious”. Argumentative strategies adopted by parents and children in food-related discussions at mealtimes. Appetite, 73, 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. (2015). Beyond conflicts: Origin and types of issues leading to argumentative discussions during family mealtimes. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(2), 263–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. (2016). The argument from expert opinion as other-oriented reference in disciplinary discussions. Studies in Communication Sciences, 16(2), 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buty, C., & Plantin, C. (2008). Argumenter en classe de sciences. Du débat a l’apprentissage. Lyon: INRP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chouinard, M. M., Harris, P. L., & Maratsos, M. P. (2007). Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive development. Boston, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. (2011). In context. Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. Argumentation, 25(2), 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurydice, (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Brussels: EACEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult: child conversation. Child Development, 80(6), 1592–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 28–44). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (2003). When is conceptual change intended? A cognitive-sociocultural view. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 407–427). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students and scientists reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2002). Designing argumentation protocols for the classroom. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 105–120). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 89–113). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Facal, R., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Arcidiacono, F. (2015). Le territoire comme composante de l’identification nationale dans l’argumentation des élèves du secondaire. In N. M. Mirza & C. Buty (Eds.), Argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp. 323–354). Bern: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Konstantinidou, A. (2013). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation, 27(3), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The child project: Computational tools for analyzing talk. Pittsburgh, PA: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (1996). Collaborative reasoning on self-generated analogies. Conceptual growth in understanding scientific phenomena. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(4), 309–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(6), 305–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain specific and domain general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reason well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 67–90). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argument in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 367–380). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 91–126). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Utrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: the case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 310–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right…if they argue! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., & van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2007). Types of dialogue, dialectical relevance and textual congruity. Anthropology and Philosophy, 8(1–2), 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under Grant number P2TIP1_148347.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

    Antonio Bova

Authors
  1. Antonio Bova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Bova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. HEP-BEJUNE, University of Teacher Education, Biel, Switzerland

    Francesco Arcidiacono

  2. (USI), Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

    Antonio Bova

Appendices

Appendix 1: Teacher–Student Dialogue in the Academic Context Questionnaire

Appendix 2

Appendix 3: Teacher–Student Dialogue in the Academic Context

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bova, A. (2017). The Role of the Teacher in Promoting Argumentative Interactions in the Learning Contexts of Higher Education. In: Arcidiacono, F., Bova, A. (eds) Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59083-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59084-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation