Argumentieren und Urteilen in der politischen Bildung auf Sekundarstufe I

Project Logo
DOI of the original publication
URI
https://irf.fhnw.ch/handle/11654/48465
Project type
angewandte Forschung
Project start
01.02.2022
Project end
31.01.2026
Project status
laufend
Project contact
Project manager
Contributors
Description
Abstract
Das Projektteam erarbeitet einerseits Grundlagen zu Ausprägungen und Förderbedingung des Argumentierens und Urteilens im Unterricht der Politischen Bildung für die Sekundarstufe I. Andererseits evaluiert es deren Lernwirksamkeit empirisch.
Link
https://argumentieren-und-urteilen.ch
Created during FHNW affiliation
Yes
Strategic action fields FHNW
School
Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW
Institute
Institut Forschung und Entwicklung
Financed by
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds (SNF)
Project partner
Contracting authority
SAP reference
Keywords
Argumentieren
Urteilen
Politische Bildung
Deliberation
Subject (DDC)
370 - Erziehung, Schul- und Bildungswesen
Publications
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Thumbnail Image
Publication
Promoting oral argumentation in citizenship education
(19.09.2024) Wenger, Liliane; Aydin, Açelya; Hubacher, Manuel; Waldis Weber, Monika
Deliberative democracy theories advocate for the communicative activation of citizens in opinion formation. Therefore, civic education should introduce adolescents to deliberative processes and to promote their argumentative competence, which is understood as both a linguistic and a political competence. In accordance with our roots in deliberative democratic theory, we view argumentation as a dialogue-based process. This makes transactivity a key feature of good civic reasoning. Empirical evidence shows potential for instructional interventions to boost oral reasoning and critical thinking across subjects, but their effects often remain inconsistent. Data also suggests that students in deliberative settings are more willing to engage with opposing arguments and revise their own. Dialogues in small groups facilitate the acquisition of argumentation skills. Despite these findings, there's limited research on argumentation training effectiveness. In an intervention study (grades 8 and 9), Gronostay combined a thematic input with argumentation training, leading to more transactive speech acts during the subsequent fishbowl discussion in the experimental group. However, the revision and adaptation of their own arguments remained largely absent. This study investigates the effectiveness of an adapted version of Gronostay's strategy training in promoting transactive dialogues. The research involved six seasoned teachers and their classes in the 2022/23 school year, who were engaging with the subject of a cashless society. Despite standardized argumentation training, the quality of debates varied significantly between the classes studied. Influences on the quality of the debates include the social structure of the class, the influence of didactic scaffolding, such as argumentation training.

Version History

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
VersionDateSummary
4*
 2024-11-26 13:39:35
Update Forschungsteam und Projektlaufzeit
3
 2023-01-17 09:31:33
Aktualisierung Forschungsteam
2
 2022-08-18 15:36:28
Aktualisierung Forschungsteam
1
 2022-06-08 11:32:04
* Selected version