When students argue to reach consensus rather than to convince or persuade, they commit to understanding and integrating others' ideas¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students who engage in arguing to reach consensus (rather than to convince) are more likely to elicit, elaborate on, and integrate ideas rather than close down discussion. → consensus-1

Evidence¶

consensus-1¶

Schank, P., Barth, C., Crawford, V., and Fusco, J. (2025, May). Collaborative Argumentation for Learning. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/251

q2 · i? · review · r1

The primer reports, citing Felton et al. (2015), that "arguing to reach consensus rather than arguing to convince or persuade" leads students to commit to understanding and integrating arguments. No effect size is printed; the primer narrates the cited study without detail.

"Research suggests that when students engage in arguing to reach consensus rather than arguing to convince or persuade, they make a commitment to understand the arguments and to integrate their thinking; they are more likely to elicit ideas, elaborate on ideas, and work to integrate the ideas"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students high in Need for Cognition are more persuaded by unintelligible messages than students low in Need for Cognition — related
• Students positioned as leaders thickened an “agents of change” identity by using surveys, data, and graphs to convince others, including teachers — related
• In the case discourse, failure to integrate individuals' ideas with sound verification was linked to low-level inquiry outcomes, while successful high-level grounding enabled groups to integrate ideas and negotiate shared knowledge — related