CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 595Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentScience Education and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Development of Argument Skills

Kuhn, Deanna, Udell, Wadiya·2003·Child Development
DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00605
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This work sought to obtain experimental evidence to corroborate cross-sectional patterns of development in argument skills and to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to foster development of these skills in academically at-risk 13- to 14-year-olds. Students participated in 16 sessions of a collaborative, goal-based activity providing dense exercise of argumentive thinking. One condition included peer dialogues; another did not. The former was the more effective, although both groups progressed. Participants showed increased frequency of usage of powerful argumentive discourse strategies, such as counterargument, and decreased frequency of less effective strategies. Quality of individual arguments (for or against a claim) also improved, supporting the existence of a close relation between these two kinds of argument skills.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-8624.00605

Cites

59 of 59 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

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Anderson, 1998, Literacy for all, 170
  2. Haith, 1998, Handbook of child psychology: Vol II. Cognition, perception, and language, 199
  3. Kuhn, 2001, Mechanisms of cognitive development: Neural and behavioral perspectives, 221
  4. Kuhn, Education for thinking
  5. Voss, 2001, Argumentation in psychology [Special issue]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–593 of 593

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Kuhn, Deanna
ORCID
Venue
Child Development
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-09-12
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
1245-1260
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
DOI
10.1111/1467-8624.00605
OpenAlex
W2078619954
Cited by
595
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 27
FWCI
14.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
argumentative reasoning, counterargument, peer discussion, cooperative learning, at-risk students, adolescents, argument quality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Black or African American, Child, Communication, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Male, New York City, Peer Group, Poverty, Problem Solving, Remedial Teaching, Risk Factors, Thinking, Underachievement, Urban Population, Verbal Behavior, Black People

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