Argumentation in different flavors
My work in argumentation and explanation began with their recognition as mechanisms favoring learning during foundational work with Michael Baker. Much research has focused on elaborating pedagogical scenarios in which instructions, task sequences, tools and guidance are evaluated for their capacity to provoke high quality argumentation and explanation, in which students are disentangling new concepts. In work with Gaëlle Molinari and in the context of Claire Polo’s Ph.D. in educational science, we have been building on this theme by taking into account the emotional and social positioning occurring during argumentation and the role emotion plays in shared meaning-making. I have also studied the role of argumentation in collaborative design through the analysis of both architects’ and mechanical and electrical engineers’ group work. I am interested in understanding how design teams whose members have different expertise come to decisions together and in how this process can be supported. This was addressed in Jean Cassier’s Ph.D. and briefly in Fatima-Zahra Abou Eddahab’s Ph.D., both in Industrial Engineering. Finally, I have begun looking at argumentation in philosophical reasoning in the context of Anda Fournel’s Ph.D. in the language sciences. How do children formulate questions and discuss them in philosophical dialogue?