The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument
Abstract
This article examines the effects of participation in oral argumentation on the development of individual reasoning as expressed in persuasive essays. Engagement in oral argumentation is the essential feature of a classroom discussion method called collaborative reasoning. A premise of this method is that reasoning is fundamentally dialogical and, hence, the development of reasoning is best nurtured in supportive dialogical settings such as group discussion. Students from 3 classrooms participated in collaborative reasoning discussions for a period of 5 weeks. Then, these students and students from 3 comparable classrooms who had not engaged in collaborative reasoning wrote persuasive essays. The essays of collaborative reasoning students contained a significantly greater number of relevant arguments, counter-arguments, rebuttals, formal argument devices, and uses of text information.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Changes in oral argumentation skills have been shown to transfer to written performance (Felton et al., 2009;Reznitskaya et al., 2001).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Reznitskaya et al., 2001
Citations
Cites
Speech Genres and Other Late Essays
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) · University of Texas Press eBooks · doi:10.7560/720466 · Cited by 9,079
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays
Wasiolek, E., Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. G. (1982) · Comparative Literature · doi:10.2307/1770763 · Cited by 7,540
Pearson, P. D., Barr, (. E., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Barr, R. (1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5764 · Cited by 6,850
Multiple regression in behavioral research
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,919
Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning
Cazden, C. B. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,045
Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding
Michelene, T. H., Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7 · Cited by 2,492
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90014-3 · Cited by 1,463
A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524513.007 · Cited by 1,207
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Challenge of Academic Language
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609664.008 · Cited by 692
“However, some complex features might also transfer from spoken to written language, as Collaborative Reasoning studies demonstrate (Reznitskaya et al., 2001).”
BackgroundMercer, N., & Howe, C. J. (2012) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001 · Cited by 710
“They report positive transfer to the quality of students' written arguments (Reznitskaya et al., 2006).”
BackgroundThe Development of Argument Skills
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 · Cited by 595
Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015576 · Cited by 566
“Despite differences across the purposes and goals of various approaches, evidence suggests that discussions about and around text have the potential to increase student comprehension, metacognition, critical thinking, and reasoning, as well as students’ ability to state and support arguments (e.g., Bird, 1984; Reznits…”
BackgroundMcNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1 · Cited by 798
“Argument has been a goal across a variety of domains (Voss & Van Dyke, 2001) including language arts (Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2002; Reznitskaya et al., 2001), economics (Cho & Jonassen, 2002), mathematics (Cobb, 2002), debate (D.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y.
- ORCID
- Reznitskaya, Alina
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 155-175
- ISSN
- 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6950
- OpenAlex
- W2062614287
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 6.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Discourse Processes (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Linguistics and Education Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- oral argumentation, collaborative reasoning, argumentative writing, argumentation, dialogical reasoning, classroom discussion, counterargument, rebuttal, writing development
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
