Constructive Argumentation During Sense‐Making Group Dialogues in Science Teaching

ABSTRACT Group dialogues are a common feature of inquiry‐based science teaching and other pedagogical approaches that incorporate practical work. Both deliberative and disputational argumentation have been identified as important components of productive group dialogue in science education. However, students co‐constructing explanatory propositions also appears essential for developing complex scientific accounts of experimental observations. Therefore, we need more detailed insight into the critical and constructive elements of students' dialogic utterances to understand how different types of dialogue may interact productively. Grounded in a sociocultural perspective, this study employs microgenetic analysis to examine 12 group dialogues involving 31 different students from 8th, 11th, and 13th grade science classrooms. It identifies both supportive and oppositional dialogic contributions and analyzes their impact on collective knowledge construction. The findings show that supportive and oppositional utterances are intertwined and contribute to knowledge building in various ways. While reasoned argumentation was less frequent than other types of utterances, productive discussions often involved shifts between co‐construction and argumentation, helping students develop, critique, and refine complex ideas in incremental steps. Furthermore, not only reasoned arguments, but also certain forms of opposition without reasons, prompted rethinking of insufficient ideas. The findings suggest that groups practiced inquiry dialogues resulting in complex explanations which, while not necessarily correct, represent valuable resources for subsequent instructional activities.