Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in ContextVol. 11:3 (2022) ► pp.283–328
From inference processes to situations of misunderstanding
A case study
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 discourse, 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 (2003, 2007).
Keywords: argumentation, education, inference, meaning, misunderstandings, points of view
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1School tasks interpretation: Inference processes, argumentation and misunderstanding
- 1.2A perspectivist epistemology
- 2.Theoretical framework
- 2.1A situated approach
- 2.2Moments for the investigation of inference processes at school
- 2.3Points of view
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1A descriptive approach in psychology
- 3.2Data collection and selection
- 3.3Procedure for the analyses
- 4.The case
- 4.1The PISA item
- 4.2A student’s answer
- 5.First analysis
- 5.1Introduction to the analytical model
- 5.2Evaluator’s point of view
- 5.3Student’s point of view
- 5.4Conclusion of the first analysis
- 6.Second analysis
- 6.1Introduction to the analytical model
- 6.2Evaluator’s point of view
- 6.3Student’s point of view
- 6.4Conclusion of the second analysis
- 7.Discussion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References
Apostel, L., Grize, J.-B., Papert, S., and Piaget, J.
1963 La filiation des structures. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
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. 
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,
157
1, 85–101.
Bautier, E. and Rayou, P.
2009 Les inégalités d’apprentissage : programmes, pratiques et malentendus scolaires. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France.
Bautier, E., & Rochex, J.-Y.
2004 Activité conjointe ne signifie pas significations partagées. Raisons Éducatives. Situation Éducative et Significations,
8
1, 199–220.
2007 Apprendre : des malentendus qui font la différence. In J. Deauvieau & J.-P. Terrail (dir.), Les sociologues, l’école et la transmission des savoirs (pp. 227–241). Paris: La Dispute.
Bernstein, B.
1975 Langage et classes sociales. Editions de Minuit, Paris.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C.
1970 La reproduction. Eléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Paris, Minuit.
Brousseau, G.
1998/2004 Théorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
Bruner, J.
1990 Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Donaldson, M.
1982 Conservation: what is the question? British Journal of Psychology,
73
1, 199–207.
Flyvbjerg, B.
2006 Five Misunderstandings About Case- Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12
(2), 219–245.
Flyvjberg, B.
2011 Case Study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th Edition (pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Forman, E. A. & Larrenamendy-Joerns, J.
1998 Making Explicit the Implicit: Classroom Explanations and Conversational Implicatures. Mind, Culture, and Activity,
5
1, 105–113.
Freeman, J. B.
2018 Inferences, Inference Rules, Generalized Conditionals, Adequate Connections In: Oswald, S. & Maillat, D. (Eds.) 2018 Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (pp.79–100). London: College Publications.
Gerritsen, S.
2001 Unexpressed Premises. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp.50–80). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Ghiglione, R. and Trognon, A.
1993 Où va la pragmatique ? Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
Giere, R. N.
2006 Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P. M.
1999 Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, J.
2002 Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Greco, S., De Cock, B.
2021 Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability, Journal of Pragmatic,
174
1, 55–67.
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.
Greco, S., Miserez-Caperos, C. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
2015 L’argumentation à visée cognitive chez les enfants. In N. Muller Mirza and C. Buty (Eds), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp. 39–82). Bern: Peter Lang.
Greco, S., Perret-Clermont, A. N., Iannaccone, A., Rocci, A., Convertini, J., & Schaer, R.
2018 The Analysis of Implicit Premises within Children’s Argumentative Inferences. Informal Logic,
38
(1), 438–470.
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.
Greeno
1987 Generative 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.
Greeno, J. G.
2006 Learning in Activity. In: Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. P.
1979 Logique et conversation. Communications,
30
1, 57–72.
Grize, J.-B.
1982 De la logique à l’argumentation. Genève: Librairie Droz S.A.
1996 Logique naturelle & communications. Paris: PUF.
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.
Hundeide, K.
1985 The tacit background of children’s judgments. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture communication and cognition : Vygotskian perpectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2010 An interpretative approach to children. In D. 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.
Inhelder, B.
1962 Some Aspects of Piaget’s Genetic Approach to Cognition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
27
1, 17–31.
Inhelder, B., Cellerier, G., Ackermann, E., Blanchet, A., Boder, A., de Caprona, D., Ducret, J.-J., and Saada-Robert, M.
1992 Le cheminement des découvertes chez l’enfant. Delachaux & Niestlé.
Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J.
1955 De la logique de l’enfant à la logique de l’adolescent. Presses Universitaires de France.
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,
13
1, 80–96.
2018 From the Logic of the Child to a natural logic: Perspectives as Knowledge. Human Arenas,
1
1, 97–111.
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.
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.
Kohler, A.
2020a Approches 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 ; [URL]
2020b La discussion à visée philosophique en classe : le problème d’une prise de parole authentique, Diotime,
7
1, 85, [URL]
Kohler, A., & Mehmeti, T.
2018 Studying the Process of Interpretation on a School Task: Crossing Perspectives. Paper presented at S. Oswald, & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation. Fribourg 2017 (pp.453–478). London: College Publications.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W.
2003 The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development,
74
(5), 1245–1260.
2007 Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning,
13
(2), 90–104.
Le Hebel, F., Montpied, P., & Tiberghien, A.
2014 Which effective competencies do students use in PISA assessment of scientifi literacy? In A. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), ESERA 2011 selected contributions. Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 273–289). Dordrecht: Springer.
2016 Which Answering Strategies Do Low Achievers Use to Solve PISA Science Items? In N. 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 from
Lipman, M.
2003 Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 de l’Université de Neuchâtel.
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.
Mehmeti, T., & Perret-Clermont, A. N.
2016 Seeking Success of Migrant Students through Designed Tasks: A Case Study with Albanian Students in Switzerland. In A. Surian (Ed.) Open Spaces for Interactions and Learning Diversities (pp. 137–150). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mehmeti, T., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Iannaccone, A.
2016 Multiplicity of cognitive demands in a PISA item. Presented at J. 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.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M.
2003 Analyses des données qualitatives. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Miserez-Caperos, C.
2017 Étude 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 from [URL]
Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A. N.
2009 Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundation and Practices. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
Nonnon, E.
2015 Préface. In N. Muller Mirza & C. Buty (Eds.), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp. 1–11). Berne: Peter Lang.
OECD
2004 Learning for Tomorrow’s World – First Results from PISA 2003. OECD.
2009 Take the Test Sample Questions from OECD’s PISA Assessments. OECD.
2014 PISA 2012 Results in Focus. What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. OECD.
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
1958 Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
1979 La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Berne: Peter Lang.
1980 Recherche en psychologie sociale expérimentale et activité éducative. Revue Française de Pédagogie,
53
1, 30–38.
1992 Les implicites dans les situations d’apprentissage Cahiers de l’Institut Supérieur de Pédagogie de l’Université Catholique de Paris
,
19
1, 20–53.
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.
Piaget, J.
1937/1967 La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Lausanne, Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Piaget, J., and Garcia, R.
1987 Vers une logique des significations. Genève: Murionde.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B.
1948 La représentation de l’espace chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
1966 La psychologie de l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Plantin, C.
2005 L’argumentation: histoire, théories et perspectives. Paris: PUF.
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.
Psaltis, C., Duveen, G., and Perret-Clermont, A. N.
2009 The social and the psychological: Structure and context in intellectual development. Human Development,
52
1, 291–312.
Psaltis, C., and Zapiti, A.
2014 Interaction, Communication and Development. Psychological development as a social process. London: Routledge.
Rochex, J.-Y. & Crinon, J.
(Ed.) 2011 La construction des inégalités scolaires. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
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,
30
1, 163–212.
Säljö, R.
1991 Piagetian controversies, Cognitive competance, and assumption about human communication. Educational Psychology Review,
3
(2), 117–126.
Schär, R. G.
2018 On the negotiation of the issue in discussions among young children and their parents. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique Tranel,
68
1, 17–25.
2021 An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of the Issues in Adult-Children Discussions. John Benjamins. [URL].
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.
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.
Schwarz, B., & Baker, M.
2017 Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York City: Cambridge University Press.
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.
2016 Language Games and Meaning as Used in Student Encounters With Scientific Literacy Test Items. Science Education,
100
(2), 321–343.
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,
39
1, 772–811.
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.
van Eemeren, F. H.; Garssen, B.; Krabbe, E. C. W.; Henkemans, F. A. S.; Verhey, B. & Wagemans, J. H. M.
2014 Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R.
1992 Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R.
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation : The pragma-dialectical approach. Amsterdam: The press syndicate of the university of Cambridge.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
1993 Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
2002 Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah (NJ)/London: Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
2007 Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A.
2001 Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes,
32
(2–3), 89–111.
Weil-Barais, A.
1993 L’homme cognitif. Paris: PUF.
Zeidler, D. L.
(Ed.) 2003 The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education. Dordrecht, Boston, London, Kluwer Academic Publishers.