Dialogic argumentation as a bridge to argumentative thinking and writing / La argumentación dialógica como puente para el pensamiento y la escritura argumentativa
Open accessAbstract
Argumentation has been claimed to be ‘the more general human process of which more specific forms of reasoning are a part’. The educational context in which argument is most often practised and assessed is individual expository writing — a skill that teachers routinely report as their most challenging to teach and one in which students typically perform poorly. It becomes increasingly important with advancing grade and by the post-secondary level is crucial to academic success. We describe the dialogic method we have developed to foster young adolescents’ argument skills. Its essence is to engage students in rich and extended dialogues with one another on significant topics. We review evidence that the method, implemented in extended form over two or more years, produces positive outcomes in argumentative discourse, in individual writing and in meta-level understandings of argumentative discourse and evaluations of argument. In this study, we elaborate on these results and on the promise and challenges the method poses.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 Kuhn et al. (2016), students in the dialogic argumentation group improved in addressing both sides of an issue but needed more practice to develop towards an integrative stance.
“In a study by Kuhn et al. (2016), at the end of the first year of the intervention, although the students in the dialogic argumentation group improved their essay writing in terms of addressing both sides of an issue, they needed more practice for further development towards an integrative stance (which includes the negatives of their preferred position or positives of the opposing position).”
From Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? (2020) · cites this paper as Kuhn et al. (2016)
Dialogic and individual argumentation are closely connected.
“Dialogic and individual argumentation are closely connected (Kuhn et al., 2016).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Kuhn et al., 2016
Social interaction through dialogue can positively affect individual argumentative writing processes.
“Similarly, social interaction through dialogue can affect individual argumentative writing processes positively (Kuhn et al., 2016).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Kuhn et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488 · see citing works
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221 · see citing works
Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology
Billig, M. S. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,159 · see citing works
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Development of Argument Skills
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 · Cited by 595 · see citing works
Self-citationBest practices in writing instruction
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-2158 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Marin-Burkhart, L., & Halpern, D. F. (2010) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002 · Cited by 429 · see citing works
Lipman, M. (1977) · Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611402512 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Development of Argumentive Discourse Skill
Felton, M. K., & Kuhn, D. (2001) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651595 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Self-citationMicrogenetic Study of Change: What Has It Told Us?
Kuhn, D. (1995) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00322.x · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Self-citationClueless in academe: how schooling obscures the life of the mind
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-1690 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654313487606 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.830618 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples.
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Dialogue theory for critical thinking
Walton, D. (1989) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/bf00128147 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-year Intervention Study
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Self-citationClueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind
Heath, S. B., & Graff, G. (2004) · Academe · doi:10.2307/40252600 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. E. (2008) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Self-citationImproving Students' Evaluation of Informal Arguments
Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. A. (2009) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.3200/jexe.77.4.339-366 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Argumentation as core curriculum
Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015) · Learning Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/23735082.2015.994254 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Self-citationHuman Reasoning and Argumentation: The Probabilistic Approach
Oaksford, M., Chater, N., & Hahn, U. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814273.022 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me: Developing thinking through dialog. Bronxville, NY: Wessex Press.
- Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In R. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications. New York, NY: Springer.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education
Granado-Peinado, M., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Cuevas, I. (2019) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome?
Mateos, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Solari, M. (2020) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-020-09508-3 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M., & Martín, E. (2021) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuhn, Deanna
- ORCID
- Kuhn, Deanna
- Venue
- Infancia y Aprendizaje
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-01-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-48
- ISSN
- 0210-3702 (ISSN-L)
- 1578-4126
- OpenAlex
- W2236423065
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 35.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal for the Study of Education and Development Infancia y Aprendizaje (publishedVersion)
- Repositorio Institucional UPTC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Keywords
- dialogic argumentation, argumentative reasoning, argumentative writing, expository writing, argumentation instruction, early adolescents, classroom dialogue, argument evaluation, argumentative discourse
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
