Promoting oral argumentation in citizenship education

Abstract

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.