1887
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper sets out to analyse a case study of adult-children interaction in an educational context from a perspective of argumentation. We select a case in which 3 argumentative discussions are opened and we analyse them with the aim of understanding whether they are fully developed from a point of view of argumentation; or whether they are cut short and why. Our focus is not on the children’s individual productions but on the process of interaction. We assume the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation and the AMT as a theoretical framework. Our findings show that none of the discussions opened gets to a concluding stage, either because the teacher shifts the discussion on a different issue, or because the opening stage is not clear, or because the argumentation stage is not adequately developed. These findings contribute to conceptual clarification about how to interpret the role of a teacher.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre
2017-10-16
2019-12-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andriessen, J. , & B. Schwarz
    (2009) “Argumentative design”. InArgumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by N. Muller Mirza , & A. -N. Perret-Clermont , 145–174. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asterhan, C. , & Schwarz, B.
    (2016) Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist, 51. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 [Google Scholar]
  3. Carugati, F. , & Perret-Clermont, A-N.
    (2015) “Learning and Instruction: Social-Cognitive Perspectives”. InInternational Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition), Editor-in-chief James D. Wright , Vol13, 670–676. Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.92035‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92035-X [Google Scholar]
  4. César, M. , & Kumpulainen, K.
    (Eds.) (2009) Social Interactions in Multicultural Settings. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cesari Lusso, V.
    (2001) Quand le défi est appelé intégration. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dascal, M.
    (2003) “Understanding misunderstanding”. InInterpretation and Understanding, ed. by M. Dascal , 293–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.120.17und
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.120.17und [Google Scholar]
  7. Dolz, J. , Noverraz, M. , & B. Schneuwly
    (2001) “S’exprimer en français: séquences didactiques pour l’oral et pour l’écrit, Vol. I (5 séquences didactiques 1e – 2e)”. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
  8. van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse: extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  9. van Eemeren, F. H. , & R. Grootendorst
    (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. van Eemeren, F. H. , Grootendorst, R. , & A. F. Snoeck-Henkemans
    (2002) Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Flyvbjerg, B.
    (2001) Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810503
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503 [Google Scholar]
  13. Giglio, M.
    (2015) Creative collaboration in teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137545978
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137545978 [Google Scholar]
  14. Giglio, M. , & A. -N. Perret-Clermont
    (2012) “Prédire, agir et observer. Une méthodologie pour développer séquences pédagogiques et savoirs professionnels”. Formation et pratiques d’enseignement en questions: revue des HEP de Suisse romande et du Tessin, 14, 127–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gobber, G.
    (1999) Pragmatica delle frasi interrogative. Con applicazioni al tedesco, al polacco e al russo. Milano: ISU.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodwin, J.
    (2002) Designing issues. InDialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F. H. van Eemeren , & P. Houtlosser , 81–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Greco Morasso, S.
    (2011) Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Greco, S.
    (2016) “L’enfant dans la discussion: Questions de légitimité, de confiance et d’interprétation de sa parole”, FamPra2(2016), 402–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Greco, S. , Mehmeti, T. , & A. -N. Perret-Clermont
    (2016) “Getting involved in an argumentation in class as a pragmatic move: Social conditions and affordances”. InArgumentation and reasoned action. Proceedings of the first European Conference on Argumentation (Vol II), Ed. D. Mohammed , & M. Lewiński , 463–478. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Greco Morasso, S. , Miserez-Caperos, C. , & A. -N. Perret-Clermont
    (2015) “L’argumentation à visée cognitive chez les enfants”. InL’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation, ed. N. Muller Mirza , & C. Buty , 39–82. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacquin, J.
    (2014) Débattre. L’argumentation et l’identité au cœur d’une pratique verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.
    (2008) “Designing argumentation learning environments”. InArgumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, ed. S. Erduran , & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre , 91–115. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mehmeti, T.
    (2013) Réussite scolaire de jeunes femmes kosovares: Quels processus psycho-sociaux. Dossiers de psychologie et éducation, Université de Neuchâtel70, 5–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mehmeti, T. , & Perret-Clermont, A. N.
    (2016) “Seeking Success of Migrant Students through Designed Tasks: A Case Study with Albanian Students in Switzerland”. InOpen Spaces for Interactions and Learning Diversities, ed. A. Surian , 137–150. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑6300‑340‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-340-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mercer, N. , & Littleton, K.
    (2007) Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: Asociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Muller Mirza, N. , & C. Buty
    (2015) “L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation: enjeux et questions vives”. InL’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation, ed. N. Muller Mirza , & C. Buty , 13–36. Bern: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0848‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0848-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Osborne, J. , Erduran, S. , & S. Simon
    (2004) “Enhancing the quality of argument in school science”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching41(10), 994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035 [Google Scholar]
  28. Palmieri, R.
    (2014) Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.8 [Google Scholar]
  29. Perret-Clermont, A. -N.
    (1980) Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press (original edition in French: La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Bern: Peter Lang 1979).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2015) “The architecture of social relationships and thinking spaces for growth”. InSocial Relations in Human and Societal Development, ed. by C. Psaltis , A. Gillespie , & A. -N. Perret-Clermont , 51–70. Basingstokes (Hampshire, UK): Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137400994_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137400994_4 [Google Scholar]
  31. Perret-Clermont, A. -N. , & A. Iannaccone
    (2005) “Le tensioni delle trasmissioni culturali: c’è spazio per il pensiero nei luoghi istituzionali dove si apprende?” InQuale psicologia per la scuola del futuro?, ed. T. Mannarini et al. , 59–70. Roma: Carlo Amore.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Plantin, C.
    (1996) L’argumentation. Paris: Le Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2005) L’argumentation: Histoire, théories et perspectives. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pontecorvo, C. , & L. Sterponi
    (2006) “Learning to argue and reason through discourse in educational settings”. InLearning for Life in the 21st Century, ed. G. Wells , & G. Claxton , 127–140. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Resnick, L. B. , & F. Schantz
    (2015) “Re‐thinking intelligence: Schools that build the mind”. European Journal of Education50(3), 340–349. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12139
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12139 [Google Scholar]
  36. Resnick, L. B. , Asterhan, C. S. C. , & S. Clarke
    (Eds.) (2015) Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA. doi: 10.3102/978‑0‑935302‑43‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rigotti, E. , & S. Greco Morasso
    (2009) “Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource”. InArgumentation and Education. Theoretical Foundations and Practices, ed. N. Muller Mirza , & A. -N. Perret-Clermont ,. 9–66. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2010) “Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: the procedural and material components”. Argumentation24(4), 489–512. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑010‑9190‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schär, R.
    (2016) “Uses of arguments from definition in children’s argumentation”. Paper presented at theinternational conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Windsor (CA), May 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schär, R. , & Greco, S.
    (2016) “The emergence of issues in everyday discussions between adults and small children”. Paper presented at theconference: Inquiry and Argumentation: Education for Thinking, Ghent, August 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schneuwly, B. , & J. Dolz
    (2009) “Des objets enseignés en classe de français”. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
  42. Schubauer-Leoni, M. L.
    (1993) “Negotiating the meaning of questions in didactic and experimental contracts”. European Journal of Psychology of Education8(4), 451–471. doi: 10.1007/BF03172700
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172700 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwarz, B. B. , & Baker, M. J.
    (2016) Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sensevy, G. , & A. Mercier
    (dir) (2007) Agir ensemble: l’action didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Simon, S. , Erduran, S. , & J. Osborne
    (2006) “Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom”. International Journal of Science Education28(2–3), 235–260. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336957
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957 [Google Scholar]
  46. Trognon, A.
    (2001) “Speech acts and the logic of mutual understanding”. InEssays in speech act theory, ed. D. Vanderveken , & S. Kubo , 121–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins and sons Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.77.08tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.77.08tro [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): children’s argumentation , critical discussion , interaction , issue and opening stage
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