How do first-year psychology students argue and construct knowledge during problem-based learning?

A central task of universities is for students to learn highly specialized disciplinary knowledge. The literature shows that argumentation is one potential way to achieve this. The problem is that in higher education, there is little development of this literature. Instead, we find active teaching methodologies. Although these methodologies provide a pedagogical structure for learning, they do not necessarily highlight the role of argumentative language in higher education students as a key component for learning. We lack knowledge about how university students engage in discussions while implementing problem-based learning (PBL; one of these widely used methodologies). This qualitative study addresses this knowledge gap by describing the argumentative moves used, what is argued, and how 37 first-year psychology students argue. The most frequent moves used by students were counterargument, partnership environment, explanation by analogy, uncertainty language, deliberative goal, partial agreement, and anticipation. A microgenetic examination of four cases describes the relationship between argumentation in PBL and knowledge construction. The contribution of these findings to the pedagogical design of university teaching is discussed.