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
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
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
“University students who utilized ChatGPT to practice argumentation skills demonstrated significant improvements in constructing clear, well-supported arguments compared to a control group (Kuhn & Udell, 2003).”
From Investigating the Use of chatGPT as a Tool for Enhancing Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in International Relations Debates among Undergraduate Students (2024) · cites this paper as Kuhn & Udell, 2003
In the citing paper
“Moreover, the use of LLMs to provide immediate, targeted feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of students' arguments has been found to significantly improve their ability to construct clear, wellsupported arguments (Kuhn & Udell, 2003).”
From Investigating the Use of chatGPT as a Tool for Enhancing Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in International Relations Debates among Undergraduate Students (2024) · cites this paper as Kuhn & Udell, 2003
In the citing paper
“Moreover, the significant improvements in students' argumentation skills observed in this study align with the findings of Kuhn and Udell (2003) and Kuhn and Crowell (2011), who emphasized the effectiveness of interactive and targeted approaches, such as LLM-based training programs, in honing argumentation skills.”
From Investigating the Use of chatGPT as a Tool for Enhancing Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in International Relations Debates among Undergraduate Students (2024) · cites this paper as Kuhn and Udell (2003)
In the citing paper
“Drawing on the work of Kuhn and Udell (2003), who emphasized the importance of dialogic approaches in developing argumentation skills, this research suggests that interaction with AI acts as a valuable dialogic partner.”
From Investigating the Use of chatGPT as a Tool for Enhancing Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in International Relations Debates among Undergraduate Students (2024) · cites this paper as Kuhn and Udell (2003)
In the citing paper
“Argument skills increase between childhood and adolescence (Kuhn & Udell, 2003).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Kuhn & Udell, 2003
Citations
Cites
Advances in Instructional Psychology
(2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315864341 · Cited by 2,538
Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology
Billig, M. S. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,146
The concept of activity in Soviet psychology
Kozulin, A. (2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203434185-9 · Cited by 2,114
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Self-citationPersonal epistemology the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing
Hofer, B. K. (2009) · Cited by 1,652
Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2001) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10008 · Cited by 1,434
Education and mind in the knowledge age
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-2294 · Cited by 1,266
Who Is Rational?: Studies of individual Differences in Reasoning
Stanovich, K. E. (1999) · Cited by 1,114
Stanovich, K. E. (1999) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410603432 · Cited by 956
Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Johnson, R. H., Plantin, C., & Willard, C. A. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203811306 · Cited by 807
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Anderson, 1998, Literacy for all, 170
- Haith, 1998, Handbook of child psychology: Vol II. Cognition, perception, and language, 199
- Kuhn, 2001, Mechanisms of cognitive development: Neural and behavioral perspectives, 221
- Kuhn, Education for thinking
- Voss, 2001, Argumentation in psychology [Special issue]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Science Education International
International Council of Associations for Science Education (2019) · Science education international · doi:10.33828/sei · Cited by 1,071
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · Cited by 7,267
Making sense of argumentation and explanation
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20286 · Cited by 780
Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview
Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007) · Science & technology education library · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1 · Cited by 612
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1 · Cited by 798
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuhn, D., & Udell, W.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuhn, Deanna
- 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
- 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
