Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 11:3 (2022) ► pp.283–328

From inference processes to situations of misunderstanding

A case study

 | HEP-BEJUNE
 | University of Neuchâtel
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
Published online: 23 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18010.koh
References (95)
References
Apostel, L., Grize, J.-B., Papert, S., and Piaget, J. 1963. La filiation des structures. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bautier, E. and Rayou, P. 2009. Les inégalités d’apprentissage : programmes, pratiques et malentendus scolaires. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bautier, E., & Rochex, J.-Y. 2004. Activité conjointe ne signifie pas significations partagées. Raisons Éducatives. Situation Éducative et Significations, 8 1, 199–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. 1975. Langage et classes sociales. Editions de Minuit, Paris.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. 1970. La reproduction. Eléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Paris, Minuit.Google Scholar
Brousseau, G. 1998/2004. Théorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. 1982. Conservation: what is the question? British Journal of Psychology, 73 1, 199–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case- Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Forman, E. A. & Larrenamendy-Joerns, J. 1998. Making Explicit the Implicit: Classroom Explanations and Conversational Implicatures. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5 1, 105–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, S. 2001. Unexpressed Premises. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp.50–80). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Ghiglione, R. and Trognon, A. 1993. Où va la pragmatique ? Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. 2006. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: The Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P. M. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, S., De Cock, B. 2021. Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability, Journal of Pragmatic, 174 1, 55–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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
Grice, H. P. 1979. Logique et conversation. Communications, 30 1, 57–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grize, J.-B. 1982. De la logique à l’argumentation. Genève: Librairie Droz S.A. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Logique naturelle & communications. Paris: PUF. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J. 1955. De la logique de l’enfant à la logique de l’adolescent. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2018. From the Logic of the Child to a natural logic: Perspectives as Knowledge. Human Arenas, 1 1, 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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]
2020c. Was Piaget a Perspectivist? Human Arenas, 1 1, 492–499. [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.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. 2003. The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245–1260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13 (2), 90–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipman, M. 2003. Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
OECD 2004. Learning for Tomorrow’s World – First Results from PISA 2003. OECD. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Pisa Released Items – Mathematics. Retrieved on 15th of June 2021 from [URL]
2009. Take the Test Sample Questions from OECD’s PISA Assessments. OECD. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. PISA 2012 Results in Focus. What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. OECD.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1958. Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. 1979. La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1980. Recherche en psychologie sociale expérimentale et activité éducative. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 53 1, 30–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. 1937/1967. La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Lausanne, Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., and Garcia, R. 1987. Vers une logique des significations. Genève: Murionde.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. 1948. La représentation de l’espace chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
1966. La psychologie de l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Plantin, C. 2005. L’argumentation: histoire, théories et perspectives. Paris: PUF. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psaltis, C., and Zapiti, A. 2014. Interaction, Communication and Development. Psychological development as a social process. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rochex, J.-Y. & Crinon, J. (Ed.), 2011. La construction des inégalités scolaires. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säljö, R. 1991. Piagetian controversies, Cognitive competance, and assumption about human communication. Educational Psychology Review, 3 (2), 117–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. 2017. Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York City: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Language Games and Meaning as Used in Student Encounters With Scientific Literacy Test Items. Science Education, 100 (2), 321–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah (NJ)/London: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. 2001. Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32 (2–3), 89–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weil-Barais, A. 1993. L’homme cognitif. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.) 2003. The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education. Dordrecht, Boston, London, Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar