Persuasion versus deliberation: discourse patterns in children’s argumentative dialogues

This study examined the impact of discourse goals on peer argumentative dialogues for four controversial topics designed for the Morality and Law subject for Chinese elementary school students. Eight fourth-grade classes were assigned to one of three conditions—Persuasion Dialogue (PD), Deliberation Dialogue (DD), and Control. For each intervention topic, PD and DD condition students engaged in two sessions of direct peer dialogues, while Control condition students addressed the topics and textbook contents in traditional teacher-led whole-class discussions. PD condition dialogues consisted of competitive talk only, while DD condition dialogue consisted of both competitive and collaborative talk. However, PD condition students were more successful in making counterarguments to attack an opponent directly and in drawing on evidence to support claims. Constructed dialogues of PD and DD condition students at post-assessment largely mirrored patterns identified in peer dialogues. The strengths of different discourse goals to promote students’ argumentation skills and implications for implementing argumentative dialogues in elementary classrooms are discussed.