CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 338Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsScience Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 247 of the 255 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories

Asterhan, Christa S. C., Schwarz, Baruch B.·2016·Educational Psychologist
DOI 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458

Cites

247 of 247 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Wagoner, M., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all (pp. 170–186). New York, NY: Guilford.
  2. Asterhan, C. S. C., Butler, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Goals for learning and interaction in argumentation and conceptual change. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) - Volume 1. Chicago IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  3. 10.1080/10508406.1998.967205 · DOI
  4. 10.2307/1176776 · DOI
  5. 10.1348/000709907×268589 · DOI
  6. Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with me: Developing thinking and writing through dialog. Bronxville, NY: Wessex Press.
  7. Sofer-Vital, S., Schwarz, B. B., & (2012). Achievement goals, argumentation and conceptual change in science. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Conceptual Change. University of Trier, Germany.
  8. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation: Critical reasoning and argumentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  9. 10.1348/000709908×380772 · DOI
  10. 10.2307/749877 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 338

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B.
Affiliations
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Asterhan, Christa S. C.
ORCID
Venue
Educational Psychologist
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-04-02
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
164-187
ISSN
  • 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6985
DOI
10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
OpenAlex
W2314714283
Cited by
338
References
255
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 5
FWCI
46.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
argumentation, dialogue, learning outcomes, research framework, research gaps

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review