Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 6:2 (2017) ► pp. 193–219

Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation?

A case study

| Università della Svizzera italiana
| Université de Neuchâtel
| Université de Neuchâtel
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.
Keywords: children’s argumentation, interaction, critical discussion, opening stage, issue


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 27 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre

Full-text

Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation?
References

References

Andriessen, J., & B. Schwarz
(2009) “Argumentative design”. In Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. by N. Muller Mirza, & A. -N. Perret-Clermont, 145–174. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asterhan, C., & Schwarz, B.
(2016) Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist, 51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carugati, F., & Perret-Clermont, A-N.
(2015) “Learning and Instruction: Social-Cognitive Perspectives”. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition), Editor-in-chief James D. Wright, Vol 13, 670–676. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
César, M., & Kumpulainen, K.
(Eds.) (2009) Social Interactions in Multicultural Settings. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Cesari Lusso, V.
(2001) Quand le défi est appelé intégration. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.
(2003) “Understanding misunderstanding”. In Interpretation and Understanding, ed. by M. Dascal, 293–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H.
(2010) Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse: extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & R. Grootendorst
(1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & A. F. Snoeck-Henkemans
(2002) Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B.
(2001) Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giglio, M.
(2015) Creative collaboration in teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Gobber, G.
(1999) Pragmatica delle frasi interrogative. Con applicazioni al tedesco, al polacco e al russo. Milano: ISU.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.
(2002) Designing issues. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser, 81–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, S.
(2011) Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 217 ]
Greco, S.
(2016) “L’enfant dans la discussion: Questions de légitimité, de confiance et d’interprétation de sa parole”, FamPra 2(2016), 402–415.Google Scholar
Greco, S., Mehmeti, T., & A. -N. Perret-Clermont
(2016) “Getting involved in an argumentation in class as a pragmatic move: Social conditions and affordances”. In Argumentation 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
Greco Morasso, S., Miserez-Caperos, C., & A. -N. Perret-Clermont
(2015) “L’argumentation à visée cognitive chez les enfants”. In L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation, ed. N. Muller Mirza, & C. Buty, 39–82. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jacquin, J.
(2014) Débattre. L’argumentation et l’identité au cœur d’une pratique verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.
(2008) “Designing argumentation learning environments”. In Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, ed. S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 91–115. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Mehmeti, T.
(2013) Réussite scolaire de jeunes femmes kosovares: Quels processus psycho-sociaux. Dossiers de psychologie et éducation, Université de Neuchâtel 70, 5–125.Google Scholar
Mehmeti, T., & Perret-Clermont, A. N.
(2016) “Seeking Success of Migrant Students through Designed Tasks: A Case Study with Albanian Students in Switzerland”. In Open Spaces for Interactions and Learning Diversities, ed. A. Surian, 137–150. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K.
(2007) Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: Asociocultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Muller Mirza, N., & C. Buty
(2015) “L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation: enjeux et questions vives”. In L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation, ed. N. Muller Mirza, & C. Buty, 13–36. Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & S. Simon
(2004) “Enhancing the quality of argument in school science”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10), 994–1020. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmieri, R.
(2014) Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
(2015) “The architecture of social relationships and thinking spaces for growth”. In Social Relations in Human and Societal Development, ed. by C. Psaltis, A. Gillespie, & A. -N. Perret-Clermont, 51–70. Basingstokes (Hampshire, UK): Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A. -N., & A. Iannaccone
(2005) “Le tensioni delle trasmissioni culturali: c’è spazio per il pensiero nei luoghi istituzionali dove si apprende?” In Quale psicologia per la scuola del futuro?, ed. T. Mannarini et al., 59–70. Roma: Carlo Amore.Google Scholar
Plantin, C.
(1996) L’argumentation. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
(2005) L’argumentation: Histoire, théories et perspectives. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, C., & L. Sterponi
(2006) “Learning to argue and reason through discourse in educational settings”. In Learning for Life in the 21st Century, ed. G. Wells, & G. Claxton, 127–140. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. B., & F. Schantz
(2015) “Re‐thinking intelligence: Schools that build the mind”. European Journal of Education 50(3), 340–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 218 ]
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & S. Clarke
(Eds.) (2015) Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E., & S. Greco Morasso
(2009) “Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource”. In Argumentation and Education. Theoretical Foundations and Practices, ed. N. Muller Mirza, & A. -N. Perret-Clermont,. 9–66. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) “Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: the procedural and material components”. Argumentation 24(4), 489–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schär, R.
(2016) “Uses of arguments from definition in children’s argumentation”. Paper presented at the international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Windsor (CA), May 2016.
Schär, R., & Greco, S.
(2016) “The emergence of issues in everyday discussions between adults and small children”. Paper presented at the conference: Inquiry and Argumentation: Education for Thinking, Ghent, August 2016.
Schneuwly, B., & J. Dolz
(2009) “Des objets enseignés en classe de français”. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Schubauer-Leoni, M. L.
(1993) “Negotiating the meaning of questions in didactic and experimental contracts”. European Journal of Psychology of Education 8(4), 451–471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J.
(2016) Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sensevy, G., & A. Mercier
(dir) (2007) Agir ensemble: l’action didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & J. Osborne
(2006) “Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom”. International Journal of Science Education 28(2–3), 235–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trognon, A.
(2001) “Speech acts and the logic of mutual understanding”. In Essays in speech act theory, ed. D. Vanderveken, & S. Kubo, 121–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins and sons Publishing Company. Crossref[ p. 219 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of Issues in Adult-Children Discussions [Argumentation in Context, 19], Crossref logo
Greco, Sara
2021.  In An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of Issues in Adult-Children Discussions [Argumentation in Context, 19], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Greco, Sara & Barbara De Cock
2021. Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability. Journal of Pragmatics 174 ► pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo
Iannaccone, Antonio, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont & Josephine Convertini
2019. Children as Investigators of Brunerian “Possible Worlds”. The Role of Narrative Scenarios in children’s Argumentative Thinking. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 53:4 ► pp. 679 ff. Crossref logo
Perret-Clermont, Anne-Nelly
2018. Baruch B. Schwarz and Michael J. Baker. (2017) Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice . Journal of Argumentation in Context 7:1 ► pp. 101 ff. Crossref logo
Perret-Clermont, Anne-Nelly, Rebecca Schär, Sara Greco, Josephine Convertini, Antonio Iannaccone & Andrea Rocci
2019.  In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 211 ff. Crossref logo
Rigotti, Eddo & Sara Greco
2019.  In Inference in Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 34], ► pp. 207 ff. Crossref logo
Schär, Rebecca & Sara Greco
2018. The Emergence of Issues in Everyday Discussions Between Adults and Children. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric 2:1 ► pp. 29 ff. Crossref logo
Soncini, Annalisa, Maria Cristina Matteucci & Fabrizio Butera
2021. Error handling in the classroom: an experimental study of teachers’ strategies to foster positive error climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education 36:3 ► pp. 719 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 january 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.