The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deliberation versus Dispute: The Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom
Open accessAbstract
Researchers in science education have converged on the viewthat argumentation can be an effective intervention for promoting knowledge construction in science classrooms.However, the impact of such interventions may be mediated by individuals’ task goals while arguing. In argumentative discourse, one can distinguish two overlapping but distinct kinds of activity: dispute and deliberation. In dispute the goal is to defend a conclusion by undermining alternatives, whereas in deliberation the goal is to arrive at a conclusion by contrasting alternatives. In this study, we examine the impact of these discourse goals on both content learning and argument quality in science.
Overview
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
Verification
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 the citing paper
“Deliberative dialogues, compared to persuasive dialogues, also help students to elaborate two-sided essays i.e. texts, which involve argument-counterargument integration, mitigating the effects of confirmation-bias (Felton et al., 2009;Villarroel et al., 2016).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Felton et al., 2009
In the citing paper
“Although the refutation strategy allows the problem space to be explored, it does not encourage two sided-reasoning as much as weighting or synthesis/designing claims, which are much more integrative strategies (Felton et al., 2009;Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Felton et al., 2009
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 Felton et al., 2009
In the citing paper
“Several studies had already shown the benefits of dialogic activities in argumentative writing processes (Crowell & Kuhn, 2014;Kuhn & Crowell, 2011;Kuhn et al., 2016;Litosseliti et al., 2005;Reznitskaya et al., 2001), especially when these dialogues are raised with a deliberative rather than persuasive goal (Felton et al., 2009(Felton et al., , 2015b(Felton et al., , 2019;;Villarroel et al., 2016)”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Felton et al., 2009
In the citing paper
“This evidence is consistent with previous research in which deliberative dialogues, compared with persuasive dialogues, favoured the integration of arguments and counterarguments (Felton et al., 2009(Felton et al., , 2015b)).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Felton et al., 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Handbook of Child Psychology
(1932) · Nature · doi:10.1038/130331a0 · Cited by 10,133
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Advances in Instructional Psychology
(2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315864341 · Cited by 2,538
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
Driver, R., Newton, P. E., & Osborne, J. F. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3 · Cited by 2,339
Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80016-9 · Cited by 2,296
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
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 · cited 3×
“For example, Zohar and Nemet (2002) conducted a study in which ninth graders learning about human genetics were assigned to an argumentation group or a control.”
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20012 · Cited by 1,408
Mercer, N. (2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203464984 · Cited by 1,376 · cited 2×
“As Mercer (2000) recommends in his concept of exploratory talk, “partners engage critically, but constructively with each other’s ideas…proposals may be challenged and counterchallenged, but if so reasons are given and solutions are offered (p. 153).””
Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294 · Cited by 672
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Kelly, J.G., & Chen, C. (1999). The Sound of Music: Constructing Science as Sociocultural Practices though Oral and Written Discourse. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 36(8), 883- 915.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 · Cited by 338
“…deliberative argumentation is important, as they are expected to affect learning outcomes differently (Asterhan, 2013; Asterhan & Babichenko, 2015; Felton et al., 2009; Garcia-Mila, Gilabert, Erduran, & Felton, 2013; Mercer, 1996): A focus on the interpersonal, competitive dimension of social…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialRapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654313487606 · Cited by 228
Self-citationThe Effect of Argumentative Task Goal on the Quality of Argumentative Discourse
García-Milà, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. K. (2013) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21057 · Cited by 181
“The results of the present work show that argumentative task goals have an effect on the quality of argumentation and help explain one way in which argumentation enhances learning outcomes in science (Felton et al., 2009).”
Self-citationManaging uncertainty in scientific argumentation
Chen, Y., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21527 · Cited by 146
Trends in Research on Writing as a Learning Activity
Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.01 · Cited by 226
“…very general terms such as “writing,” or “learning strategies” (Demirbag & Gunel, 2014; Petko, Egger & Graber, 2014); as well as very specific terms, such as “argumentation” (Felton et al., 2009), “journal writing” (Glogger et al., 2012), and “analogical encoding” (Mason & Tornatora, 2014).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S.
- Affiliations
- San Jose State University (US)
- Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Felton, Mark
- Venue
- Informal Logic
- Publisher
- University of Windsor Leddy Library
- Published
- 2009-12-17
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 417
- ISSN
- 0824-2577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1671099834
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 7.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Informal Logic (publishedVersion)
- San José State University ScholarWorks (San Jose State University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Harvard University
- Generalitat de Catalunya
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Keywords
- argumentation, deliberation, disputes, task goals, argument quality, science learning, knowledge construction, reasoning, science classroom 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
