A distinction can be drawn between individual argument and dialogic argumentation between two or more people taking contrasting positions. These two forms of argument are closely related. The individual, internal process of reaching a reasoned argument has been regarded as an interiorized form of dialog (Billig, 1987; Kuhn, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). This parallel suggests that participation in dialogic argumentation may offer a path the development of individual argument skills. The present study investigates whether argumentive discourse facilitates advancement in individual argumentive reasoning among an academically disadvantaged population. Participants in the study were 52 8th-graders attending an urban, public middle school. A pretest-posttest design compared the effects of an argumentive discourse curriculum on individual argument skills. The curriculum, implemented over seven months, consisted of dialogic argumentation on three social topics: home-schooling, school expulsion and US intervention overseas. The reasoning of all participants was assessed on the topic of Capital punishment in two contexts - dialog with a peer conducted via instant messaging and individual, oral interview.;The intervention group generated significantly more reasons at posttest than a non-intervention comparison group during dialogic exchange. In addition, significantly more intervention than control participants made references to the opposing side's position, suggesting a greater sensitivity to the existence of an alternative view. Compared to the control group, intervention participants were also more likely to use reasons that undermine the opponent's position (and indirectly serve to support one's own position). Performance on the individual interviews did not reflect gains of a similar magnitude to those found in the dialogs. In the interviews, significantly more intervention than control participants raised reasons that supported the opponent's position (which, when successfully refuted, could serve to weaken the opponent's arguments). Finally, the intervention group less often used lower-quality reasons, such as those that are based on sentiment or authority. The results suggest that participants' gain in dialogic argumentation did not transfer fully to individual argumentive reasoning skills to the degree that has been observed in a more academically able population (Kuhn, Goh, Iodamou, and Shaenfield, in press). Suggestions for enhancing transfer from dialogic to individual skills are made.
展开▼
