What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education
Open accessAbstract
The need to enhance argument skills through education has become increasingly evident during the past 20 years. This need has resulted in an ongoing discussion that focuses on students’ and teachers’ argumentation and its support. However, apart from the extended competence-based discourse, no clear and homogeneous definition exists for argumentative competence and its constituent skills. To respond to this deficiency, we conducted an integrative literature review focusing on the methods of argument analysis and assessment that have been proposed thus far in the field of education. Specifically, we constructed an interpretative framework to organize the information contained in 97 reviewed studies in a coherent and meaningful way. The main result of the framework’s application is the emergence of three levels of argumentative competence: metacognitive, metastrategic, and epistemological competence. We consider this result the beginning of further research on the psycho-pedagogical nature of argument skills and their manifestation as competent performance.
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?
Argumentation is a typically human cognitive activity that requires linguistic command.
“Argumentation is a typically human cognitive activity (Rapanta et al., 2013), because it requires linguistic command.”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Rapanta et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 132 · Cited by 228
Research works printed but not linked: 42
- Andrews, R. (2009). Argumentation in Higher Education: improving practice through theory and research. New York: Routledge.
- Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer Support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative learning environments (pp. 79-116). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) & P. Coirier and J. Andriessen (Vol. Eds.) Studies in Writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, DOI: 1874/51235
- Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127-144). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_5. · DOI
- Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A Guide for social scientists. New York: Routledge.
- Cox, J. R., & Willard, C. A. (1982). Introduction: The field of argumentation. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. xiii- xivii). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
- Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O' Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Pergamon.
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (1998). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312, DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3 <287::AID-SCE >3.3CO;2-1. · DOI
- Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
- Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, Vol. 35. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
- EU-European Union (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels. Retrieved on 10/12/2011 from: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF
- In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 29-47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
- Hample, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439-478). Mahwah, New Jersey:
- Hennessey, M. G. (2003). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. In G. M. Sinatra and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 103-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792, DOI: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190, DOI: 10.1080/09500690210134857. · DOI
- Johnson, R. H. & Blair, A. (1994). Logical Self-Defense. New York: McGraw Hill.
- Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137-157). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, Argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry. Argumentation is learning. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative learning environments (pp. 261-284). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-179.
- Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16-26, DOI: 10.2307/1177186. · DOI
- In P. Mitchell, & K. J. Riggs (Eds.), Children's reasoning and the mind (pp. 301-326). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
- Kuhn, D. (2002). A multi-component system that constructs knowledge: Insights from microgenetic study. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 109-131). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, DOI: 10.1017/CB09780511489709.005. · DOI
- Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kuhn, D., & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how)? In W. Damon & Richard M. Lerner (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2, Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 953-993). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modelling and argument in elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 29-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Means, M. L. & Voss, J., F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178, DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci1402-1. · DOI
- Nussbaum, E. M. & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573-595, DOI: 10.1016/50361- 476X(02)00038-3. · DOI
- O' Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In J.R. Cox & Ch.A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3-23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
- Perelman, Ch. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Perkins, D. N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping, D. C. Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.). Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
- Sanders, R. E. (2003). Applying the skills concept to discourse and conversation: the remediation of performance defects in talk-in-interaction. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 221- 256). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-88). Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
- Stein, N. & Miller, C. A. (1991). I win-you lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In, J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 265-290). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing: a rhetorical model of argument. New York: State University of New York Press.
- van Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
- Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Walton, D.N. (1998). The New Dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Authors
- Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S.
- Affiliations
- Zayed University (AE)
- University of Barcelona
- Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 483-520
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2127617787
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 132
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 25.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion)
- Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- 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 competence, argumentation analysis, argument evaluation, metacognitive skills, argumentation in education
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
