Processes of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Results from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue

Abstract

Decades of research have proven that many misconceptions of scientific notions are difficult to uproot even after intensive instructional interventions. In this paper we examine the role of argumentation and of explanation development in dyadic dialogues and their relation to consequential individual conceptual change. Two quantitative dialogue coding schemes were developed with different granularity: The first assessed the interlocutors' dialog moves during the discussion that pertained to argumentation and explanation development. The second scheme characterized the dialogue as a whole on a number of social and socio-cognitive dimensions. The results emphasized the critical role of engagement in dialectical argumentation for conceptual change, whereas explanation development and validation was not related to learning gains. This finding may explain why instructional interventions are too often insufficient to uproot robust misconceptions. The methodological implications for the study of conceptual change, as well as the practical implications for designing for productive argumentation are discussed.