The

development of a coding
scheme to analyse
collabora6ve group argumenta6on

Antonia Larraín, Paulina Freire and Patricia López
Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile.

Valezka Grau
PonAficia Universidad Católica de Chile

alarrain@uahurtado.cl

Camila Morán and Constanza Villavicencio (research assistants)

Project funded by FONDECYT grant nº 1140995 and nº1170431

 Peers’ argumenta6on is key for
learning
•  There is compelling evidence to show that
collaboraAve group argumentaAon prompts student
concept development at different ages (Asterhan &
Schwarz, 2007; Chen & She, 2012; Howe, 2009;
Kuhn, 2015; Schwarz & Linchevinsky, 2007; Tolmie,
Howe, Mackenzie & Greer, 1993; Zohar & Nemet,
2002).
 Problem one
•  Although there is some experimental evidence
supporAng the relaAonship between peer-group
argumentaAon and disciplinary learning (Asterhan &
Schwarz, 2007; Chen & She, 2012; Howe, 2009; Kuhn,
2015; Schwarz & Linchevinsky, 2007; Zohar & Nemet,
2002), there are s6ll many things we don’t know
(Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016).
•  Which are the (epistemic, social, linguisAc) condiAons
under which collaboraAve argumentaAon promotes
learning?
 Problem two
•  Empirical research does not necessarily
converge in terms of how argumentaAve
language is conceptualised, or indeed how it
is analysed.

•  We need to discuss the way in which we
conceive of and analyse argumentaAve discourse
in collaboraAve acAviAes in order to make
empirical comparable and convergent
contribuAons, and to advance in the knowledge
of the knowledge building potenAal of
argumentaAon.
•  This is not only important to educaAon, but also
to understanding the psychological process of
developing convenAonal meanings through
discourse.
 We consider argumenta6on as…
… a discursive social prac6ce that occurs when speakers,
in order to deal with controversial ma<ers, ask and give
addiAonal support to a given point of view, and eventually
challenge one another’s ideas (van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 1992).

ArgumentaAon, therefore, is the use of specific forms of
language in order to deal with specific social goals.

Dialogic view of argumenta6on: it may emerge in one
u<erance (argument) insofar as it responds to implicit
controversial standpoints (Billig, 1987; Leitao, 2000).
•  We have been working with the hypothesis that
interpersonal argumentaAon has a knowledge
potenAal insofar as its internaliza6on or
appropria6on promotes the dialogiza6on of
thinking that, in turn, prompts knowledge
construcAon.
•  So we are interested in grasping the dialogical-
dialec6cal structure of argumentaAon in order to
relate it to learning outcomes.
 Our focus is on…
•  both coalescent (Kuhn, 2015) or consensual (Asterhan,
2013) argumentaAon; and dialec6c or criAcal–construcAve
(Asterhan, 2013) deliberaAve (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016)
argumentaAon;
•  the potenAal for knowledge-construc6on and thinking
development, in the procedural, epistemological, logical
and epistemic aspects;
•  structure/funcAon more than quality, because we have
been focused on primary students, but also because there
is evidence showing that more than content it is the
structure of the discussion what maoers (see Howe et al,
1992; Kapur, 2014; Sampson & Clark, 2009).
Our analy6cal framework is meant to…
•  differen6ate argumenta6ve moves, even
within coalescent argumentaAon, because
although discussion of different perspecAves
has been idenAfied as key to learning,
jusAficaAve moves have also been shown to
have knowledge building potenAal (see the
work of Webb and colleagues);
•  disAnguish different psychological ‘moves’
that are relevant to knowledge-construcAon.
Therefore, our analyses are inspired by the
triadic unit of Leitao (2000) trying to grasp the
underlying psychological processes:
Argument
Counter-
argument
Response
 Triadic unit (Leitao, 2000)
Semio6c mechanisms Psychological processes
Argument AnAcipaAon of
weaknesses
Counter- ReflecAve shis from
argument object to thinking
Considering both
Response aspects: integraAon,
affirmaAon, refutaAon
Let’s try to use it!
The following
excerpt
corresponds to a
discussion among
fourth-grade
students.

They had to decide
which forces were
acAng on the
astronaut.
48: So, here in the one below, it is gravity because he's falling down?
51: No, because he'd be floating.
48: No, then it's magnetic, because gravity does not attract him. What attracts him?
Nothing.
43: No, because if it attracted him he'd fall faster, like the magnet. When the magnet
gets something it stops right away.
43: Okay, let's discard magnetic force.
43: So it's not magnetic force, and it's not human force either.
48: Gravity.
35: I think it's human force.
43: No, not human force.
48: No, because he does not make weight, because it has a little hole that you pull
and it stays there.
43: I think it's the air that keeps him there.
35: Yes, the force of air.
43: Centrifugal force.
51: The force of air!
43: Hey, it may be centrifugal force.
51: No, because he would have to stay around it.
48: So, here in the one below, it is gravity Argument
because he's falling down?
51: No, because he'd be floating. Counter-argument
48: No, then it's magnetic, because gravity Counter-argument
does not attract him. What attracts him? to her previous
argument
Nothing.
43: No, because if it attracted him he'd fall Counter-argument
faster, like the magnet. When the magnet gets
something it stops right away.
43: Okay, let's discard magnetic force. Response
 Let’s try to use it!
Counter-argument or
Argument +
counter-
response? argument?
or
48: So, here in the one counter-argument
below, it is gravity Argument
+ response?
Or
because he's falling down?
Counter-argument or argument
(support for the previous
51: No, because he'd be floatingposition?) Counter-argument
48: No, then it's magnetic, because gravity Counter-argument to
does not attract him. What attracts him? her previous
argument
Nothing.
43: No, because if it attracted him he'd fall Counter-argument
faster, like the magnet. When the magnet gets
something it stops right away.
43: Okay, let's discard magnetic force. Response
This dialogic framework is problemaAc for the
analysis of large amounts of data, where
reliability is needed:
ü Any piece of discourse could be interpreted as a
different mechanism, even as more than one at a Ame.
ü QuesAons are considered counter-arguments.
ü Aser a counter-argument, it is not completely clear how
support for iniAal arguments should be codified.
ü Responses are tricky to idenAfy, so it is not clear where a
unit finishes.
ü Moreover, moves can be considered arguments,
counter-arguments and responses to pieces of discourse
that are formulated later in the conversaAon.
 Unit of analysis
1.  More than sequences or units, we focus on
u<erances.
(We conducted a large-scale study (Larrain,
Freire & Howe, 2014) focused on both episodes
and uoerances, and aser several months of
analysing episodes we discovered that
uoerances were simpler and more reliable.)
 DelimitaAon of codes
2. Arguments were considered to be any claim +
jusAficaAon that have not been preceded by a
counter-argument.

Aser a counter-argument has been formulated, any
support for the iniAal posiAon is understood as
dialecAcally oriented to the counter-argument.

For example:
 Argument
48: So, here in the one below, it is gravity
because he's falling down? Counter-argument
51: No, because he'd be floating.
Counter-argument
48: No, then it's magnetic, because gravity
does not attract him. What attracts him?
Nothing.
Support
43: No, because if it attracted him he'd fall
Counter-argument
faster, like the magnet. When the magnet gets
something it stops right away.
43: Okay, let's discard magnetic force.
 New codes
3. Leitao (2000) considers any discursive move that
challenges the iniAal posiAon or argument to be a
counter-argument.

Considering that elaboraAve quesAons have shown
the potenAal for collaboraAve learning (see Webb
et al., 1995), and following coding schemes to
analyse dialogic talk (see Henessy et al., 2016), we
differen6ated argumenta6ve ques6ons from
counter-arguments.


 New codes: jus6fica6ve and
argumenta6ve ques6ons
•  Interac6on 2
•  T: Where will the car move faster: on the smooth
surface or on the corrugated one?
Justificative
question
•  S1: On the smooth one.
•  T: Why?
•  S2: Because there is less fricAon.
Argumentative
•  T: Okay, Jimmy, why? question
•  S: Because the liole bumps slow down the car.
•  T: Okay. Miguel, do you agree with his answer?
 DifferenAaAon of codes
4. We also differenAated simple opposi6ons with no
jusAficaAon from counter-arguments:


48: So, here in the one below, it is gravity because he's falling down?

51: No, because he'd be floaAng.

48: No, then it's magneAc, because gravity does not aoract him. What aoracts him? Nothing.

43: No, because if it aoracted him he'd fall faster, like the magnet. When the magnet gets something it stops
right away.

43: Okay, let's discard magneAc force.

43: So it's not magneAc force, and it's not human force either.

48: Gravity.

35: I think it's human force. Simple opposition or
challenge
43: No, not human force.

 DifferenAaAon of codes
5. And we idenAfied three types of counter-
argument:
-  JusAfied opposiAon (Type 1).
-  Argument that weakens a previous argument
(Type 2).
-  Argument that weakens a previous counter-
argument (Type 3).
48: So, here in the one below, it is gravity because he's falling down?
Counter-argument
T2 Counter-argument
51: No, because he'd be floating.
T2
48: No, then it's magnetic, because gravity does not attract him. What attracts him?
Nothing. Counter-argument
43: No, because if it attracted him he'd fall faster, like the magnet. When the
T3 magnet
gets something it stops right away.
43: Okay, let's discard magnetic force.
43: So it's not magnetic force, and it's not human force either.
48: Gravity.
35: I think it's human force. Counter-argument
43: No, not human force. T1
48: No, because he does not make weight, because it has a little hole that you pull
and it stays there.
43: I think it's the air that keeps him there.
35: Yes, the force of air.
43: Centrifugal force.
51: The force of air!
Counter-argument
43: Hey, it may be centrifugal force.
T1
51: No, because he would have to stay around it.
 6. Although Leitao (2000) idenAfied counter-
arguments and responses, we could not reach
inter-rater reliability on responses.

For example:
48: So, here in the one below, it is gravity because he's falling down?
51: No, because he'd be floating.
48: No, then it's magnetic, because gravity does not attract him. What attracts him?
Nothing.
43: No, because if it attracted him he'd fall faster, like the magnet. When the magnet
gets something it stops right away.
43: Okay, let's discard magnetic force. Response
48: So, here in the one below, it is gravity because he's falling down?
51: No, because he'd be floating.
48: No, then it's magnetic, because gravity does not attract him. What attracts him?
Nothing.
43: No, because if it attracted him he'd fall faster, like the magnet. When the magnet
gets something it stops right away. Response?
43: Okay, let's discard magnetic force. Response?
43: So it's not magnetic force, and it's not human force either.
48: Gravity. Response?
35: I think it's human force.
43: No, not human force. Response?
48: No, because he does not make weight, because it has a little hole that you pull
and it stays there.
43: I think it's the air that keeps him there.
35: Yes, the force of air.
43: Centrifugal force.
51: The force of air!
43: Hey, it may be centrifugal force. Response?
51: No, because he would have to stay around it.
 Summary of
the coding
scheme
Jus6fica6ve: Students’
quesAons that ask for
reasons and jusAficaAons in
a context of controversy.
Ques6ons
Argumenta6ve ques6ons:
Students’ quesAons that
invite people to agree or
disagree with a given claim.
Argumenta6ve u<erances
Arguments: Students’
formulaAons of a reason(s)
to support a claim.
Affirma6ons
Counter-arguments:
Students’ formulaAons of
reasons and jusAficaAons to
discuss an argument, or
counter-argument.
 Corpus
CollaboraAve discussions
8
classrooms
/ science
lessons
3 videos 119 187
students
videos
per group (aged 10–
11)
40
groups
 Inter-rater reliability
•  26% corpus double-codified (31 videos)
•  12 rounds
•  K Cohen Arguments • 0.67
Counter-
arguments • 0.91
JusAficaAve
quesAons
• 1.0
ArgumentaAve
quesAons
 In synthesis
•  To analyse argumentaAon in collaboraAve discussions,
grasping its dialogical nature and psychological
dimension on a large scale is necessary but not
straigh}orward.
•  A focus on u<erances is a viable opAon in order to
obtain the bigger picture, but qualitaAve and more
complex analyses are needed to complement these
views (i.e. a focus on sequences).
•  Our coding scheme allows evalua6on of the differen6al
knowledge-building poten6al of argumentaAve
quesAons, arguments and counter-arguments.
Thank you!
 Difference between argumenta6on
and explana6on
•  Interac6on 1
•  Teacher (T): Why does this ball fall down?
•  Student (S): Because of gravity.
•  T: Good, because gravity aoracts it to the earth.
Controversy
•  Interac6on 2
•  T: Where will the car move faster: on the smooth surface or
on the corrugated one?
Justification
•  S1: On the smooth one. of position
•  T: Why? taken
•  S2: Because there is less fricAon.
•  T: Okay, Jimmy, why?
•  S: Because the liole bumps slow down the car.