Students made more evaluative comments after the dialogic argumentation intervention, but their evaluations still favored their own position¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Participants made more evaluative comments post-assessment than pre-assessment across both texts. → Iordanou 2025 q2 i? Despite increased evaluation, evaluative comments remained mainly critical of the other side, showing myside bias's resilience. → Iordanou 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Iordanou 2025¶

Iordanou, K., Fotiou, C., Manoli, A., & Zembylas, M. (2025). Examining myside bias on a controversial historical event after engagement in dialogic argumentation: Insights from a think aloud study. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102209

q3 · i? · causal · r1

GLMM analysis of think-aloud codes from 30 participants at pre-test and 24 at post-test, with random intercepts for participants and school and refugeedom as covariate. The models showed "more evaluative comments (EC) post-assessment compared to pre-assessment" across both texts.

"GLMM results comparing reasoning between the initial and final assessments showed that participants made more evaluative comments (EC) post-assessment compared to pre-assessment (see Table 2) across both texts."

Iordanou 2025 (2)¶

Iordanou, K., Fotiou, C., Manoli, A., & Zembylas, M. (2025). Examining myside bias on a controversial historical event after engagement in dialogic argumentation: Insights from a think aloud study. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102209

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Thematic analysis of evaluative comments following Braun and Clarke (2006) found the same evaluation themes pre- and post-intervention, with quantity increasing but gist unchanged; evaluations were "mainly critical of the other side" at both assessment points.

"Nevertheless, such evaluations were mainly critical of the other side in both the pre- and post-intervention assessment points."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Critical Thinking — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Reading the own-side account elicited more valid elaborative inferences, relevant associations, consequences-for-present statements and evaluative comments, while the other-side account elicited more invalid inferences — related
• After the intervention, some students shifted from one-sided to two-sided reasoning: comments against their own side doubled and own-side support halved when reading the other-side text — related
• Participants' engagement (think-aloud word counts) did not differ significantly between texts or assessment points — related