Volume 11, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In this paper, we describe inferences on a school task, which are reconstructed by the mean of two perspectives from argumentation theory: The pragma-dialectical model and Grize’s natural logic. Both analyses focus on the same item of mathematics, issued from a PISA survey, in order to discuss their specific contribution in elucidating the actual reasoning involved in both the student's answer and the evaluator’s expectations. The mismatch between these two points of view allow us to discuss the potentiality of a situation of misunderstanding.

Investigating how specific tasks in particular contexts are interpreted provides a contribution to methodological approaches treating thinking processes as situated and socially negotiated from a diversity of points of views, as for example Inhelder’s (1962) microgenetic approach. In order to extend such analysis to interpretations of , an interdisciplinary approach combining argumentation theory and socio-cognitive psychology is needed.

Here, we observed for instance that students may provide the expected answers and still interpret the question or problem differently from the task’s designers (or “teacher”). The meaning of language and other signs, such as graphs or mathematical symbols, cannot be taken for granted when several interlocutors are involved. This issue chiefly concerns argumentation theory, since it raises the question of the integration of specific contexts and points of view in the analysis of argumentation. Therefore, argumentation should be analysed also as a process, and not only as a product; For more detail on this distinction, see for instance Grize (1996) and Kuhn & Udell (20032007).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Apostel, L., Grize, J.-B., Papert, S., and Piaget, J.
    1963La filiation des structures. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, M.
    2015 The integration of pragma-dialectics and collaborative learning research. Dialogue, externalisation and collective thinking. In. F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice (pp.175–199). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.9.10bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.9.10bak [Google Scholar]
  3. Bautier, E., Crinon, J., Rayou, P., & Rochex, J.-Y.
    2006 Performances en littéracie, modes de faire et univers mobilisés par les élèves: analyses secondaires de l’enquête PISA 2000. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 1571, 85–101. 10.4000/rfp.441
    https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.441 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bautier, E. and Rayou, P.
    2009Les inégalités d’apprentissage : programmes, pratiques et malentendus scolaires. Paris : Presses Universitaire de France. 10.3917/puf.bauti.2009.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.bauti.2009.01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bautier, E., & Rochex, J.-Y.
    2004 Activité conjointe ne signifie pas significations partagées. Raisons Éducatives. Situation Éducative et Significations, 81, 199–220. 10.3917/dbu.moro.2004.01.0197
    https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.moro.2004.01.0197 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2007 Apprendre : des malentendus qui font la différence. InJ. Deauvieau & J.-P. Terrail (dir.), Les sociologues, l’école et la transmission des savoirs (pp.227–241). Paris : La Dispute.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernstein, B.
    1975Langage et classes sociales. Editions de Minuit, Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C.
    1970La reproduction. Eléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Paris, Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brousseau, G.
    1998/2004Théorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bruner, J.
    1990Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Donaldson, M.
    1982 Conservation: what is the question?British Journal of Psychology, 731, 199–207. 10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1982.tb01802.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01802.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Flyvbjerg, B.
    2006 Five Misunderstandings About Case- Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. 10.1177/1077800405284363
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 [Google Scholar]
  13. Flyvjberg, B.
    2011 Case Study. InN. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th Edition (pp.301–316). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Forman, E. A. & Larrenamendy-Joerns, J.
    1998 Making Explicit the Implicit: Classroom Explanations and Conversational Implicatures. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 51, 105–113. 10.1207/s15327884mca0502_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0502_4 [Google Scholar]
  15. Freeman, J. B.
    2018 Inferences, Inference Rules, Generalized Conditionals, Adequate ConnectionsIn: Oswald, S. & Maillat, D. (Eds.) 2018 Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (pp.79–100). London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gerritsen, S.
    2001 Unexpressed Premises. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp.50–80). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ghiglione, R. and Trognon, A.
    1993Où va la pragmatique ?Grenoble : Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Giere, R. N.
    2006Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: The Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226292144.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226292144.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P. M.
    1999Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, J.
    2002 Designing issues. InF. H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp.81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Greco, S., De Cock, B.
    2021 Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability, Journal of Pragmatic, 1741, 55–67. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.019 [Google Scholar]
  22. Greco, S., Mehmeti, T., & Perret-Clermont, A. N.
    2017 Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation? A case study. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(2), 193–219. 10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre [Google Scholar]
  23. Greco, S., Miserez-Caperos, C. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
    2015 L’argumentation à visée cognitive chez les enfants. InN. Muller Mirza and C. Buty (Eds), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp.39–82). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Greco, S., Perret-Clermont, A. N., Iannaccone, A., Rocci, A., Convertini, J., & Schaer, R.
    2018The Analysis of Implicit Premises within Children’s Argumentative Inferences. Informal Logic, 38(1), 438–470.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Greco, S., Schär, R., Pollaroli, C., & Mercuri, C.
    2018 Adding a temporal dimension to the analysis of argumentative discourse: Justified reframing as a means of turning a single-issue discussion into a complex argumentative discussion. Discourse Studies, 20(6), 726–742. 10.1177/1461445618770480
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618770480 [Google Scholar]
  26. Greeno
    Greeno 1987Generative Processes in Representations of Problems. Final Report of research supported by the Office of Naval Research, Contract N00014-85-K-0095, Project NR 667–544. Berkeley: California University.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Greeno, J. G.
    2006 Learning in Activity. In: Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grice, H. P.
    1979 Logique et conversation. Communications, 301, 57–72. 10.3406/comm.1979.1446
    https://doi.org/10.3406/comm.1979.1446 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grize, J.-B.
    1982De la logique à l’argumentation. Genève: Librairie Droz S.A. 10.3917/droz.grize.1982.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/droz.grize.1982.01 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1996Logique naturelle & communications. Paris: PUF. 10.3917/puf.grize.1996.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.grize.1996.01 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hughes, H., Williamson, K., and Lloyd, A.
    2007 Critical incident technique. In: Lipu, S. (Ed.), Exploring methods in information literacy research (pp.49–66). Wagga Wagga, N.S.W.: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University. 10.1016/B978‑1‑876938‑61‑1.50004‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-876938-61-1.50004-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hundeide, K.
    1985 The tacit background of children’s judgments. InJ. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture communication and cognition : Vygotskian perpectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010 An interpretative approach to children. InD. Sommer, K. Hundeide, & I. Pramling (Eds.), Child perspective and children’s perspectives in theory and practice (pp.119–137). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New-York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Inhelder, B.
    1962 Some Aspects of Piaget’s Genetic Approach to Cognition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 271, 17–31. 10.2307/1165529
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1165529 [Google Scholar]
  35. Inhelder, B., Cellerier, G., Ackermann, E., Blanchet, A., Boder, A., de Caprona, D., Ducret, J.-J., and Saada-Robert, M.
    1992Le cheminement des découvertes chez l’enfant. Delachaux & Niestlé.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J.
    1955De la logique de l’enfant à la logique de l’adolescent. Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kohler, A.
    2015 Elements of natural logic for the Study of Unnoticed Misunderstanding in a Communicative Approach to Learning. Argumentum. Journal of the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, 131, 80–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2018 From the Logic of the Child to a natural logic: Perspectives as Knowledge. Human Arenas, 11, 97–111. 10.1007/s42087‑018‑0007‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0007-9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kohler, A., Lordelo, L. & Carriere, K.
    2017 Researching Research: Three Perspectives for a Hint of Perspectivism. In: Sullivan, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Biennal Conference of the International Society of Theory of Psychology (pp.215–223). Coventry : Captus University Publication.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kohler, A. & Donzé, T.
    2017 De la pensée qu’il faut apprendre ou formater, à l’apprentissage de la pensée : quelques éléments d’une épistémologie perspectiviste pour un usage scolaire. In:Lebrun, M. (Ed.), Et si l’école apprenait à penser… (pp.59–84). Bienne : Éditions HEP-BEJUNE.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kohler, A.
    2020aApproches psychologiques de situations de malentendu dans des activités de didactique des sciences. Thèse de doctorat présentée à la Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines de l’Université de Neuchâtel ; https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Alaric_Kohler/44936
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2020b La discussion à visée philosophique en classe : le problème d’une prise de parole authentique, Diotime, 71, 85, www.educ-revues.fr/DIOTIME/AffichageDocument.aspx?iddoc=113600
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2020c Was Piaget a Perspectivist?Human Arenas, 11, 492–499. https://rdcu.be/b2RiF
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kohler, A., & Mehmeti, T.
    2018Studying the Process of Interpretation on a School Task: Crossing Perspectives. Paper presented atS. Oswald, & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation. Fribourg 2017 (pp.453–478). London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W.
    2003 The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. 10.1111/1467‑8624.00605
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2007 Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. 10.1080/13546780600625447
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447 [Google Scholar]
  47. Le Hebel, F., Montpied, P., & Tiberghien, A.
    2014 Which effective competencies do students use in PISA assessment of scientifi literacy?InA. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), ESERA 2011 selected contributions. Topics and trends in current science education (pp.273–289). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑7281‑6_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_17 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2016 Which Answering Strategies Do Low Achievers Use to Solve PISA Science Items?InN. Papadouris, A. Hadjigeorgiou, & P. C. Constantinou (Eds.), Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2013 Conference (pp.237–252). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20074‑3_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_16 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lipman, M.
    2003Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840272
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840272 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mehmeti, T.
    (in preparation). Processus de sens et cheminements de pensée d’élèves dans des situations scolaires: démarche théorique et réflexive pour dépasser une approche en termes de déficits. Thèse de doctorat à la Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines del’Université de Neuchâtel.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2016 Students Argumentation in a Standardized Test: Case Study with a Released Item from PISA. Presented at K. Kumpulainen (Chair), Students Perspectives to the Tasks and Demands of Schooling. Symposium conducted at EARLI SIG 10, 21 and 25 joint conference, Reflective minds and communities, University of Tartu.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mehmeti, T., & Perret-Clermont, A. N.
    2016 Seeking Success of Migrant Students through Designed Tasks: A Case Study with Albanian Students in Switzerland. InA. Surian (Ed.) Open Spaces for Interactions and Learning Diversities (pp.137–150). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑6300‑340‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-340-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mehmeti, T., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Iannaccone, A.
    2016 Multiplicity of cognitive demands in a PISA item. Presented atJ. Radisic & A. Baucal (Chairs), Large Scale Assessments as Tools for Reflection on the Teaching and the Learning Process. Symposium conducted at EARLI SIG 10, 21 and 25 joint conference. Reflective minds and communities, University of Tartu.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M.
    2003Analyses des données qualitatives. Bruxelles : De Boeck.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Miserez-Caperos, C.
    2017Étude de l’argumentation à visée cognitive dans des interactions entre adulte et enfants: un regard psychosocial sur le modèle pragma-dialectique. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Neuchâtel, retrieved fromdoc.rero.ch/record/289108
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A. N.
    2009Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundation and Practices. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3 [Google Scholar]
  57. Nonnon, E.
    2015 Préface. InN. Muller Mirza & C. Buty (Eds.), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp.1–11). Berne: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. OECD
    OECD 2004Learning for Tomorrow’s World – First Results from PISA 2003. OECD. 10.1787/9789264006416‑en
    https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264006416-en [Google Scholar]
  59. OECD
    OECD 2006Pisa Released Items – Mathematics. Retrieved on15th of June 2021fromhttps://www.oecd.org/pisa/38709418.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  60. OECD
    OECD 2009Take the Test Sample Questions from OECD’s PISA Assessments. OECD. 10.1787/9789264050815‑en
    https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264050815-en [Google Scholar]
  61. OECD
    OECD 2014PISA 2012 Results in Focus. What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. OECD.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    1958Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
    1979La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Berne: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 1980 Recherche en psychologie sociale expérimentale et activité éducative. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 531, 30–38. 10.3406/rfp.1980.1723
    https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.1980.1723 [Google Scholar]
  65. 1992 Les implicites dans les situations d’apprentissage Cahiers de l’Institut Supérieur de Pédagogie de l’Université Catholique de Paris, 191, 20–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Carugati, F.
    2001 Learning and Instruction, Social-Cognitive Perspectives. In: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp.8586–8588). Oxford: Pergamon. 10.1016/B0‑08‑043076‑7/02405‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02405-0 [Google Scholar]
  67. Piaget, J.
    1937/1967La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Lausanne, Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Piaget, J., and Garcia, R.
    1987Vers une logique des significations. Genève: Murionde.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B.
    1948La représentation de l’espace chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 1966La psychologie de l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Plantin, C.
    2005L’argumentation: histoire, théories et perspectives. Paris : PUF. 10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2011 Pour une approche intégrée du champ de l’argumentation: Etat de la question et questions controversées. In: Braun-Dahlet, V. (Ed.), Ciências da linguagem e didática das línguas Sciences du langage et didactique des langues: 30 ans de coopération franco-brésilienne (pp.181–207), FAPESP.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Psaltis, C., Duveen, G., and Perret-Clermont, A. N.
    2009 The social and the psychological: Structure and context in intellectual development. Human Development, 521, 291–312. 10.1159/000233261
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000233261 [Google Scholar]
  74. Psaltis, C., and Zapiti, A.
    2014Interaction, Communication and Development. Psychological development as a social process. London : Routledge. 10.4324/9780203079843
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203079843 [Google Scholar]
  75. Rochex, J.-Y. & Crinon, J.
    (Ed.) 2011La construction des inégalités scolaires. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Rochex, J.-Y.
    2006 Social, Methodological, and Theoretical Issues regarding Assessment: Lessons from a Secondary Analysis of PISA 2000 Literacy Tests. Review of Research in Education, 301, 163–212. 10.3102/0091732X030001163
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001163 [Google Scholar]
  77. Säljö, R.
    1991 Piagetian controversies, Cognitive competance, and assumption about human communication. Educational Psychology Review, 3(2), 117–126. 10.1007/BF01417923
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01417923 [Google Scholar]
  78. Schär, R. G.
    2018 On the negotiation of the issue in discussions among young children and their parents. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique Tranel, 681, 17–25. 10.26034/tranel.2018.2846
    https://doi.org/10.26034/tranel.2018.2846 [Google Scholar]
  79. 2021An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of the Issues in Adult-Children Discussions. John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027259936. 10.1075/aic.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.19 [Google Scholar]
  80. Schär, R. G., & Greco, S.
    2018 The Emergence of Issues in Everyday Discussions between Adults and Children. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric, 2(1) 29–43. 10.4018/IJSVR.2018010103
    https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSVR.2018010103 [Google Scholar]
  81. Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Grossen, M.
    1993 Negotiating the meaning of questions in didactic and experimental contracts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, VIII(4), 451–471. 10.1007/BF03172700
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172700 [Google Scholar]
  82. Schwarz, B., & Baker, M.
    2017Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York City : Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Serder, M., & Jakobsson, A.
    2015 “Why bother so incredibly much?”: student perspectives on PISA science assignments. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 833–853. 10.1007/s11422‑013‑9550‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9550-3 [Google Scholar]
  84. 2016 Language Games and Meaning as Used in Student Encounters With Scientific Literacy Test Items. Science Education, 100(2), 321–343. 10.1002/sce.21199
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21199 [Google Scholar]
  85. Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., and Baucal, A.
    2016 Experimental micro-histories, private speech and a study of children’s learning and cognitive development / Microhistorias experimentales, habla privada y un estudio del aprendizaje y el desarrollo cognitivo en los niños. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 391, 772–811. 10.1080/02103702.2016.1221055
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2016.1221055 [Google Scholar]
  86. Vergnaud, G.
    2015 Argumentation et conceptualisation: Commentaires. In: Muller Mirza, N., and Buty, C. (Ed.), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp.383–392). Berne: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. van Eemeren, F. H.; Garssen, B.; Krabbe, E. C. W.; Henkemans, F. A. S.; Verhey, B. & Wagemans, J. H. M.
    2014Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  88. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R.
    1992Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R.
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation : The pragma-dialectical approach. Amsterdam: The press syndicate of the university of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
    1993Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    2002Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah (NJ)/London: Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410602442
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602442 [Google Scholar]
  92. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    2007Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  93. Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A.
    2001 Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 89–111. 10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_01
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_01 [Google Scholar]
  94. Weil-Barais, A.
    1993L’homme cognitif. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Zeidler, D. L.
    (Ed.) 2003The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education. Dordrecht, Boston, London, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/1‑4020‑4996‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4996-X [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; education; inference; meaning; misunderstandings; points of view
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error