Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity

Abstract

In this article, we elaborate methodologies to study construction of knowledge in argumentative activities. For this purpose, we report on a quasi-empirical study on construction of knowledge through successive argumentative activities on a controversial issue. A group of 120 fifth grade students participated in successive argumentative activities; some activities involved individuals and some involved collectives. According to a first methodology, construction of knowledge was measured through arguments/outcomes produced. We developed tools for evaluating changes in individual and collective arguments. In the study, we showed the generally beneficial effect of argumentative activities on collective and individual arguments/outcomes. The significant discrepancies between collective and individual arguments suggested that individual students only partly internalized the collectively constructed arguments. We developed a qualitative methodology to refine this hypothesis as well as other hypotheses concerning the interpretation of the quantitative study. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative methodologies for studying argumentation helped identify several mechanisms of construction of knowledge in argumentative activities. In particular, it brought new light on the mediating role of representational tools such as Argumentative Maps or Pro-Con tables.