Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation and concept development: the role of imagination

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Vygotsky stated that concepts cannot be transmitted from mind to mind but instead developed through communication. Specifically, the instructional use of language would be the means for concept development. However, there is evidence to show that school concepts are particularly difficult to develop. Argumentation has been shown to promote the development of school concepts, but why is this the case? Although there are different theoretical accounts for this effect, none of them are developed from an explicit notion of what it is to understand and develop a concept. The purpose of this paper is to revisit these accounts in light of dialogical theories of meaning comprehension in order to shed light on this old problem. After discussing conceptual change and Vygotsky’s theory of concept development, a dialogical notion of meaning comprehension informed by Bakhtin is discussed. Finally, the conclusion is drawn that imagination plays a central role in concept development and that argumentation is a powerful means for imagining.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, T. (1990). Pragmatic imagination. Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society, 26(3), 325–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, T., Smith, C., & Wiser, M. (2015). Student conceptions and conceptual change. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–81). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. E., & Baker, M. J. (2015). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 439–460). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. E. B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 145–174). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 374–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydeniz, M. A., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 111–119. doi:10.1039/c5rp00170f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. The dialogical imagination (pp. 257–422) (C. Emerson, M. Holquist, trans.). Texas: University of Texas Press. Originally published 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. Speech genres and others late essays (pp. 132–158) (V.W. McGee, trans.). Texas: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergson, H. (1912/2004). Matter and memory. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

  • Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blunden, A. (2012). Concepts. A critical approach. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Che, C. H., & She, H. C. (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students’ argumentation and conceptual change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Ney York: D. C. Heath & Co., Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: the impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, C. (1998). Debatable topic or not: do we have the right to argue? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13(2), 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haye, A., & Larrain, A. (2011). What is an utterance? In M. Märtsin, B. Wagoner, E. Aveling, I. Kadianaki, & L. Whittaker (Eds.), Dialogicality in focus: challenges to theory, method and application (pp. 33–52). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

  • Howe, C. (2009). Collaborative group work in middle childhood: joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth of knowledge. Human Development, 39, 71–94. doi:10.1159/000215072.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1952). Principles of psychology. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., W. Benton Publisher (Original work published 1890).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2015). The need for interdisciplinary dialog in evolution education: a comment on the responses by Ware & Gelman and Shtulman. Cognitive Science, 39(4), 846–848. doi:10.1111/cogs.12200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, A. C. (1993). Peer collaboration: conflict, cooperation or both? Social Development, 2(3), 165–182. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1996). Thinking as argument. In L. Smith (Ed.), Criticial readings on Piaget. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrain, A., & Haye, A. (2014). A dialogical conception of concepts. Theory & Psychology, 24(4), 459–478.

  • Larrain, A., Howe, C., & Cerda, J. (2014). Argumentation in whole-class teaching and science learning. Psykhe, 23(2)1–15. doi:10.7764/psykhe.23.2.712.

  • Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360. doi:10.1159/000022697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matusov, E. (2015). Comprehension: a dialogic authorial approach. Culture & Psychology, 21(3), 392–416. doi:10.1177/1354067X15601197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason well? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2011). Vygotsky in perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moulard-Leonard, V. (2006). The sublime and the intellectual effort: the imagination in Bergson and Kant. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 37(2), 13851. doi:10.1080/00071773.2006.11006577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1955). The scientific attitude and fallibilism. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophocal writings of Peirce (pp. 42–59). New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1987). Reasoning as imagination. Interchange, 16(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365–395. doi:10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1979a). Deep structure of sentences versus message structure. In R. Rommetveit & R. M. Blakar (Eds.), Studies of language, thought, and verbal communication (pp. 17–34). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1979b). Language games, syntactic structures and hermeneutics. In R. Rommetveit & R. M. Blakar (Eds.), Studies of language, thought, and verbal communication (pp. 35–76). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 91–126). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2010). Argumentation and reasoning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), Elsevier handbook of educational psychology: new perspectives on learning and teaching (pp. 137–176). Dordrecht: Elsevier Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Lichevinski, L. (2007). The role of task design and of argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction. The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 510–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.916216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721. doi:10.1023/A:1020867916902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenner, P. (2015). Experiences which integrate and which are integrated: Proust’s art of life and van Gennep’s rites of passage as scenes for “integrating experiences” à la zittoun and Gillespie. In B. Wagoner, N. Chaudhary, & P. Hviid (Eds.), Integrating experiences: body and mind moving between contexts. Niels Bohr professorship lecture in cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952–977. doi:10.1002/tea.20358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vološinov, V. N. (1976). Discourse in life and discourse in art. In I. N. Titunik & N. H. Bruss (Eds.), Freudianism: a critical sketch (pp. 93–116). New York: Academic Press. Original work published 1926.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vološinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka, I. I. Titunik, trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Originally published 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170. doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: the framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203154472.ch1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Mason, L. (2012). Conceptual change induced by instruction: a complex interplay of multiple factors. In K. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 2: individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 221–246). Washington: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13274-009.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987a). Lecture 5. Imagination and its development in childhood (N. Minick, trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 339–350). New York: Plenum Press. Original work published 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987b). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. Original work published 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. doi:10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210 (Original work published 1930).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). The effects of “playing historian” on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63–72. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199611)10:7<63::AID-ACP438>3.0.CO; 2–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasnitsky, A. (2011). The Vygotsky that we (do not) know: Vygotsky’s main works and the chronology of their composition. PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal, 4(4), 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zittoun, T., & Cerchia, F. (2013). Imagination as expansion of experience. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47(3), 305–324. doi:10.1007/s12124-013-9234-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zittoun, T., & Gillespie, A. (2016). Imagination in human and cultural development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Fondo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (FONDECYT) project no. 1140995.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Almirante Barroso 10, Santiago, Chile

    Antonia Larraín

Authors
  1. Antonia Larraín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonia Larraín.

Additional information

Antonia Larrain is Associate Professor at Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Almirante Barroso 10, Santiago, Chile. Address: Facultad de Psicología, Almirante Barroso 26, Santiago, 8340575, Chile. Email: alarrain@uahurtado.cl

Current themes of research:

Classroom argumentation and its effects on learning. How technologies can support teachers’ use of argumentation in teaching.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Larrain, A., & Haye, A. (2012). The discursive nature of inner speech. Theory & Psychology, 22(1), 3–22.

Larrain, A., & Haye, A. (2014). A dialogical conception of concepts. Theory & Psychology, 24(4), 459–478.

Larrain, A., Freire, P., Howe, C. (2014). Science teaching and argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middle school science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 1017–1036.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Larraín, A. Argumentation and concept development: the role of imagination. Eur J Psychol Educ 32, 521–536 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0316-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0316-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation