Main Article Content
This article explores the relationship between argumentation theory and dialogic pedagogy. Arguments made in everyday discourse tend to be enthymematic, i.e., containing implicit premises. Thus, dialogue is often necessary to uncover hidden assumptions. Furthermore, evaluating logical arguments involves dialectical and dialogic processes. We articulate the role of critical questions in this process and present the Critical Questions Model of Argument Assessment (CQMAA) as a (mostly) comprehensive framework for evaluating arguments.
Students can be taught to ask and discuss these critical questions. Yet to facilitate and sustain discussion of these questions, teachers need additional tools drawn from dialogic pedagogy. We draw on Robin Alexander’s conceptual framework for this purpose as well as Michaels and O’Connor’s work on Academically Productive Talk. Alexander’s framework includes six pedagogical principles and eight repertoires of talk. We focus specifically on teacher and student talk moves and propose that critical questions should be considered an important subset of productive talk moves that can bring rigor and purpose to classroom argumentation. Other talk moves are also needed to help students construct arguments, listen and engage with one another, and help sustain discussion of the critical questions. The CQMAA provides both a theoretical and practical link between (1) logical analysis and critique and (2) dialogic teaching.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.
Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education. Blackwell.
Alexander, R. J. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge.
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135-167.
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2014). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 439–460). Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle (1960). Posterior analytics. H. Tredennick & E. S. Forster (Trans.). (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.) Harvard University Press.
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 374–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden Paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187. https//doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. M. Holquist (Eds.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.). University of Texas Press.
Brunsell, E., & Marcks, J. (2007). Teaching for conceptual change in space science. Science Scope, 30(9), 20-23.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). American Psychological Association.
Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.2.117
Davies, R. O. (n.d.). “Mr. Republican” turns “SOCIALIST.” Robert A. Taft and public housing. Ohio History Journal, 73, 135-143, 196-197.
Dove, I., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2018). The critical questions model of argument assessment. In S. Oswald & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. 2, pp. 263-280). College Publications.
Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by debate. Dodd, Mead, & Co.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Foris.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northwestern University.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175.
Hitchcock, D. (1998). Does the traditional treatment of enthymemes rest on a mistake? Argumentation, 12, 15–37.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument: a discourse analytic approach. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205-237). Southern Illinois University Press.
Jonassen, D.H., Kim, B. (2010) Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81. http://doi.org/c7qk8h
Kim, M.-Y. & Wilkinson, I. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003
Kristeva, J. (1980).Desire in language: a semiotic approach to literature and art. Columbia University Press.
Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23525185
Larrain, A., Singer, V., Strasser, K., Howe, C., López, P…& Villavicencio, C. (2021). Argumentation skills mediate the effect of peer argumentation on content knowledge in middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 736–753. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000619
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Temple University Press.
Macagno, F., & Rapanta, C. (2019). The dimensions of argumentative texts and their assessment. Studia Paedagogica, 24(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2019-4-1
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2006, April). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanation through generic versus context-specific written scaffolds. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Mayer, S., O’Connor, C., & Lefstein, A. (2019). Distinctively democratic discourse in classrooms. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 196-209). Taylor & Francis. http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780429441677/routledge-international-handbook-research-dialogic-education-neil-mercer-rupert-wegerif-louis-major
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250107
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. TERC. http://inquiryproject.terc.edu/shared/pd/TalkScience_Primer.pdf
Michaels, S. & O’Connor, C. (2015) Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion, in: L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan & S. N. Clarke (Eds), Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue (pp. 347-362). American Educational Research Association.
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C (2018). From recitation to reasoning: Supporting scientific and engineering practices through talk. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 311-336). NSTA Press.
Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, and T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications for professional, instructional, and everyday science (pp. 236-250). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moon, J., Passmore, C., Michaels, S., & Reiser, B. J. (2014). Beyond comparisons of online versus face-to-face PD. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 172-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113511497
Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). The process of becoming a participant in small-group critical discussions: A case study. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45, 488-497. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014737
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008a). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008b). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2069
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
Nussbaum, E. M. (2021). Critical integrative argumentation: Towards complexity in students’ thinking. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/fj36
Nussbaum, E. M., & Dove, I. J. (2018, August). The Middle Way: The Critical Questions Model of Argument Assessment. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of SIG 26 (Argumentation, Dialogue, and Reasoning) of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
Nussbaum, E. M., &, Dove, I. J. (2022, September 14 - 16). Was Toulmin misinterpreted? Locating evidence in the Toulmin and CER models. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of SIGs 20 & 26 of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Nussbaum, E. M., Dove, I. J., Slife, N., Kardash, C. M., Turgut, R., & Vallett, D. (2019). Using critical questions to evaluate written and oral arguments in an undergraduate general education seminar: A quasi-experimental study. Reading and Writing, 32, 1531–1552. http://doi.org/dhx9
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Argumentation, critical questions, and integrative stratagems: Enhancing young adolescents’ reasoning about current events. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 433-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3-23). Southern Illinois University Press.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Park, J., Michaels, S., Affolter, R., & O’Connor, C. (2017, December 19). Traditions, Research, and Practice Supporting Academically Productive Classroom Discourse. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.21
Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80017-4
Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625398
Reiser, B. J., Michaels, S., Moon, J., Bell, T., Dyer, E., Edwards, K. D., McGill, T. A. W., Novak, M., & Park, A. (2017). Scaling up three-dimensional science learning through teacher-led study groups across a state. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117699598
Resnick, L., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. (Eds.) (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. American Educational Research Association.
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. with Schantz, F. (2018). Next generation research in dialogic learning. In G. Hall, L. F. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp. 4698-4699). Wiley Blackwell.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Li, Y., Kim, I.-H., & Kim, S.-Y. (2008). Learning to think well: application of Argument Schema Theory to literacy instruction. In C. C. Block & Parris, S. R. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd ed.; pp. 196-213).The Guilford Press.
Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2021). The Argumentation Rating Tool: assessing and supporting teacher facilitation and student argumentation during text-based discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 103464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103464
Schnitker, S. A., & Emmons, R. A. (2013). Hegel’s Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Model. In A. L. C. Runehov & L. Oviedo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sciences and religions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_200183
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.
Sohmer, R., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (2009). Guided construction of knowledge in the classroom: The troika of talk, tasks and tools. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 105-129). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
Slum clearance: 1932–1952 (1952). Editorial research reports 1952 (Vol. II). http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1952112208
Smith, R. (2020) Aristotle’s logic. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.; E. N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/
Toulmin, S. E. (l958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. S.(2002). Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, and presentation. Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher cognitive processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Schribner, & E. Souberman, Trans., Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. N. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2007). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. Springer.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00013-4
Wink, J., & Putney, L. G. (2002/2013). A vision of Vygotsky. Allyn & Bacon/Longman.
Yu, S., & Zenker, F. (2020). Schemes, critical questions, and complete argument evaluation. Argumentation, 34, 469–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09512-4