Can we learn through disagreements?: A sociocultural perspective on argumentative interactions in a pedagogical setting in higher education

Abstract

It has been well established by educational research that social interactions play a role in learning and development. In this paper, we draw on recent advances in a sociocultural perspective in psychol- ogy that have showed the dialogical dimension of learning, and allowed to consider social interactions as a matrix for its development rather than a variable merely “influencing” psychological processes. In educational contexts, argumentative interaction is oſten considered as a potential means to learn. However, in some cases, the results of argumentative activities do not reach the learning gains expected by the teachers: the students engage in an irenic confrontation trying “to win”, or face difficulties in elaborating coun- ter-arguments and contents which allow an effective epistemic exploration of the topic under discussion. One of the main difficulties for the interlocutors seems “to agree to disagree” and to develop the topic with relevant information. This paper, drawing on a sociocultural perspective on argumentation, has two main objectives: the first is to explain the theoretical outlines of a pedagogical design implemented in a university course in social psychology. This design was conceived in order to lead the students intending to explore a complex question to enter into an epistemic discussion. The second aim is to present and discuss the results of the analysis of the argumentative discussions developed by the students. Did they agree to disagree? How did they manage disa- greements? Did their disagreements lead them to an epistemic exploration? The data are made up of 11 chat sessions in which 35 students participated in small groups of 3 or 4. The analysis focuses firstly on the structure of the sessions and secondly on the argumentative moves. The results show that the students co-construct a so- cial frame in which the disagreements can be expressed and the “deep” exploration of the topic can be developed in a cooperative framework. This finding is discussed by examining the role of the general meaning of such a setting in an academic context.