Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
APA
Chicago
MLA
Aikenhead, G. (1992). The integration of STS into science education. In Theory Into Practice (Vols. 31, Issue 1, pp. 27-35). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543521
ALLWOOD, J., TRAUM, D., & JOKINEN, K. (2000). Cooperation, dialogue and ethics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(6), 871-914. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0425
ALBE, V., & SIMONNEAUX, L. (2002). L’enseignement des questions scientifiques socialement vives dans l’enseignement agricole: Quelles sont les intentions des enseignants ?. Aster, 34(34, p. 213). https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/8791
Albe, V. (2006). Procédés discursifs et rôles sociaux d’élèves en groupes de discussion sur une controverse socio-scientifique. Revue française De pédagogie, 157, 103-118. https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.604
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to Learn (1–). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to Learn (1–). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1976). L’argumentation dans la langue. In Langages (Vols. 10, Issues 42, pp. 5-27). PERSEE Program. https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1976.2306
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001
Brundtland, G. H. (1991). Our common future. In Earth and Us (1–, pp. 29-31). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-1049-0.50009-5
Bybee, R. W. (1987). Science education and the science-technology-society (S-T-S) theme. Science Education, 71(5), 667-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710504
Dearden, P. (1981). Public participation and scenic quality analysis. In Landscape Planning (Vols. 8, Issue 1, pp. 3-19). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(81)90038-1
DEWHURST, D. W. (1992). The Teaching of Controversial Issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26(2), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1992.tb00277.x
Doury, M. (2004). La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires. Langages, 38(154), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.2004.947
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a
Argumentation in Science Education. (2007). In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Science & Technology Education Library (1–). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2
Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique naturelle et communication (1–). Presses Universitaires de France. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.grize.1996.01
Henderson, J., & Lally, V. (1988). Problem solving and controversial issues in biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 22(2), 144-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1988.9654964
Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of Socio‐scientific Issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439348
Mayberry, M. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 443-459. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199804)35:4<443::aid-tea14>3.0.co;2-a
Menary, R. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on 4E cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 459-463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(96)00021-7
Mercer, N. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking (1–). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203946657
Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths Problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507-528. https://doi.org/10.2167/le678.0
Micheli, R. (2013). Esquisse d’une typologie des différents modes de sémiotisation verbale de l’émotion. Semen, 35. https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9795
Müller, M. O., & Mulder, C. A. (2015). Proceedings Before the European Patent Office (1–). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710101
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(97)00048-9
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072746
Plantin, C. (2012). Les séquences discursives émotionnées : Définition et application à des données tirées de la base CLAPI. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 1, pp. 629-642). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20120100218
Plantin, C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions (1–). Peter Lang CH. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0070-6
Plantin, C. (2005). L’argumentation. In Que sais-je ? (1–). Presses Universitaires de France. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01
Polo, C., Plantin, C., Lund, K., & Niccolai, G. (2016). Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: A Model. Argumentation, 31(2), 301-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9407-5
Polo, C., Plantin, C., Lund, K., & Niccolai, G. P. (2017). Emotional positioning as a cognitive resource for arguing. Pragmatics and Society, 8(3), 323-354. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.01pol
Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016). Group emotions: the social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8
Polo, C., Plantin, C., Lund, K., & Niccolai, G. (2013). Quand construire une position émotionnelle, c’est choisir une conclusion argumentative : le cas d’un café-débat sur l’eau potable au Mexique1. Semen, 35. https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9800
Pomerantz, A. (2021). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments. In Asking and Telling in Conversation (1–, pp. 11-59). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190927431.003.0002
O’Malley, C. (Ed.). (1995). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (1–). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2
Simon, J.-P., & Tozzi, M. (Eds.). (2017). Paroles de philosophes en herbe (1–). UGA Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ugaeditions.7176
SIMONNEAUX, L. (2003). L’argumentation dans les débats en classe sur une technoscience controversée. In Aster (Vols. 37, Issue 37, p. 243). PERSEE Program. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/8825
Stahl, G. (2006). Group Cognition (1–). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3372.001.0001
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (1–). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840005
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation (1–). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511616389
Wegerif, R., Littleton, K., Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Rowe, D. (2004). Widening access to educational opportunities through teaching children how to reason together. Westminster Studies in Education, 27(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140672040270205
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
Aikenhead, Glen. “The Integration of STS into Science Education”. Theory Into Practice. Informa UK Limited, January 1992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543521.
ALLWOOD, JENS, DAVID TRAUM, and KRISTIINA JOKINEN. “Cooperation, Dialogue and Ethics”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, no. 6 (December 2000): 871-914. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0425.
ALBE, Virginie, and Laurence SIMONNEAUX. “L’enseignement Des Questions Scientifiques Socialement Vives Dans l’enseignement Agricole: Quelles Sont Les Intentions Des Enseignants ?”. Aster 34, no. 34, p. 213 (2002). https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/8791.
Albe, Virginie. “Procédés Discursifs Et rôles Sociaux d’élèves En Groupes De Discussion Sur Une Controverse Socio-Scientifique”. Revue française De pédagogie, no. 157 (December 1, 2006): 103-18. https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.604.
Andriessen, Jerry, Michael Baker, and Dan Suthers, eds. Arguing to Learn. []. Springer Netherlands, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7.
Andriessen, Jerry, Michael Baker, and Dan Suthers, eds. Arguing to Learn. []. Springer Netherlands, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. “L’argumentation dans la langue”. Langages. PERSEE Program, 1976. https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1976.2306.
Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert, and Arne Zeschel. “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology”. Corpora 5, no. 1 (May 2010): 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001.
Brundtland, Gro Harlem. “Our Common Future”. Earth and Us. Elsevier, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-1049-0.50009-5.
Bybee, Rodger W. “Science Education and the Science-Technology-Society (S-T-S) Theme”. Science Education 71, no. 5 (October 1987): 667-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710504.
Dearden, Philip. “Public Participation and Scenic Quality Analysis”. Landscape Planning. Elsevier BV, February 1981. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(81)90038-1.
DEWHURST, D. W. “The Teaching of Controversial Issues”. Journal of Philosophy of Education 26, no. 2 (December 1992): 153-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1992.tb00277.x.
Doury, Marianne. “La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires”. Langages 38, no. 154 (2004): 59-73. https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.2004.947.
Driver, Rosalind, Paul Newton, and Jonathan Osborne. “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms”. Science Education 84, no. 3 (May 2000): 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a.
Erduran, Sibel, and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre, eds. Argumentation in Science Education. Science &Amp; Technology Education Library. Springer Netherlands, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2.
Grize, Jean-Blaise. “Logique Naturelle Et Communication”. []. Presses Universitaires de France, 1996. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.grize.1996.01.
Henderson, Jenny, and Vic Lally. “Problem Solving and Controversial Issues in Biotechnology”. Journal of Biological Education 22, no. 2 (June 1988): 144-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1988.9654964.
Lewis, Jenny, and John Leach. “Discussion of Socio‐scientific Issues: The Role of Science Knowledge”. International Journal of Science Education 28, no. 11 (September 15, 2006): 1267-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439348.
Mayberry, Maralee. “Reproductive and Resistant Pedagogies: The Comparative Roles of Collaborative Learning and Feminist Pedagogy in Science Education”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35, no. 4 (April 1998): 443-59. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199804)35:4<443::aid-tea14>3.0.co;2-a.
Menary, Richard. “Introduction to the Special Issue on 4E Cognition”. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9, no. 4 (November 24, 2010): 459-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6.
Mercer, Neil. “The Quality of Talk in children’s Collaborative Activity in the Classroom”. Learning and Instruction 6, no. 4 (December 1996): 359-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(96)00021-7.
Mercer, Neil. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking. []. Routledge, 2007. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203946657.
Mercer, Neil, and Claire Sams. “Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths Problems”. Language and Education 20, no. 6 (November 15, 2006): 507-28. https://doi.org/10.2167/le678.0.
Micheli, Raphaël. “Esquisse d’une Typologie Des différents Modes De sémiotisation Verbale De l’émotion”. Semen, no. 35 (April 1, 2013). https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9795.
Müller, Marcus O., and Cees A.M. Mulder. “Proceedings Before the European Patent Office”. []. Edward Elgar Publishing, February 27, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710101.
Muntigl, Peter, and William Turnbull. “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics 29, no. 3 (March 1998): 225-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(97)00048-9.
Newton, Paul, Rosalind Driver, and Jonathan Osborne. “The Place of Argumentation in the Pedagogy of School Science”. International Journal of Science Education 21, no. 5 (May 1999): 553-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570.
Osborne, Jonathan, Sibel Erduran, and Shirley Simon. “Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41, no. 10 (December 2004): 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035.
Oulton, Chris, Justin Dillon, and Marcus M. Grace. “Reconceptualizing the Teaching of Controversial Issues”. International Journal of Science Education 26, no. 4 (March 19, 2004): 411-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072746.
Plantin, Christian. “Les séquences Discursives émotionnées : Définition Et Application à Des données tirées De La Base CLAPI”. SHS Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20120100218.
Plantin, Christian. “Les Bonnes Raisons Des émotions”. []. Peter Lang CH, May 7, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0070-6.
Plantin, Christian. “L’argumentation”. Que Sais-je ?. Presses Universitaires de France, August 1, 2005. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01.
Polo, Claire, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, and Gerald Niccolai. “Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: A Model”. Argumentation 31, no. 2 (July 29, 2016): 301-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9407-5.
Polo, Claire, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, and Gerald Peter Niccolai. “Emotional Positioning As a Cognitive Resource for Arguing”. Pragmatics and Society 8, no. 3 (October 13, 2017): 323-54. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.01pol.
Polo, Claire, Kristine Lund, Christian Plantin, and Gerald P. Niccolai. “Group Emotions: The Social and Cognitive Functions of Emotions in Argumentation”. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 11, no. 2 (May 11, 2016): 123-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8.
Polo, Claire, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, and Gérald Niccolai. “Quand Construire Une Position émotionnelle, c’est Choisir Une Conclusion Argumentative : Le Cas d’un Café-débat Sur l’eau Potable Au Mexique1”. Semen, no. 35 (April 1, 2013). https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9800.
Pomerantz, Anita. “Agreeing and Disagreeing With Assessments”. Asking and Telling in Conversation. Oxford University Press, April 22, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190927431.003.0002.
Sadler, Troy D., and Samantha R. Fowler. “A Threshold Model of Content Knowledge Transfer for Socioscientific Argumentation”. Science Education 90, no. 6 (2006): 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165.
Sadler, Troy D., and Dana L. Zeidler. “The Significance of Content Knowledge for Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: Applying Genetics Knowledge to Genetic Engineering Issues”. Science Education 89, no. 1 (2004): 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023.
Sandoval, William A. “Understanding students’ Practical Epistemologies and Their Influence on Learning through Inquiry”. Science Education 89, no. 4 (2005): 634-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065.
Schwarz, Baruch B., and Amnon Glassner. “The Role of Floor Control and of Ontology in Argumentative Activities With Discussion-Based Tools”. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2, no. 4 (October 17, 2007): 449-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2.
Simon, Jean-Pascal, and Michel Tozzi, eds. Paroles De Philosophes En Herbe. []. UGA Éditions, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ugaeditions.7176.
SIMONNEAUX, Laurence. “L’argumentation Dans Les débats En Classe Sur Une Technoscience controversée”. Aster. PERSEE Program, 2003. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/8825.
Stahl, Gerry. Group Cognition. []. The MIT Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3372.001.0001.
Toulmin, Stephen E. “The Uses of Argument”. []. Cambridge University Press, July 7, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840005.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. “A Systematic Theory of Argumentation”. []. Cambridge University Press, November 17, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511616389.
Wegerif, Rupert, Karen Littleton, Lyn Dawes, Neil Mercer, and Denise Rowe. “Widening Access to Educational Opportunities through Teaching Children How to Reason Together”. Westminster Studies in Education 27, no. 2 (October 2004): 143-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140672040270205.
Zeidler, Dana L., Troy D. Sadler, Michael L. Simmons, and Elaine V. Howes. “Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education”. Science Education 89, no. 3 (2005): 357-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048.
Aikenhead, Glen. “The Integration of STS into Science Education”. Theory Into Practice, vol. 31, no. 1, Informa UK Limited, Jan. 1992, pp. 27-35. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543521.
ALLWOOD, JENS, et al. “Cooperation, Dialogue and Ethics”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 53, no. 6, Dec. 2000, pp. 871-14. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0425.
ALBE, Virginie, and Laurence SIMONNEAUX. “L’enseignement Des Questions Scientifiques Socialement Vives Dans l’enseignement Agricole: Quelles Sont Les Intentions Des Enseignants ?”. Aster, vol. 34, no. 34, p. 213, 2002. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/8791.
Albe, Virginie. “Procédés Discursifs Et rôles Sociaux d’élèves En Groupes De Discussion Sur Une Controverse Socio-Scientifique”. Revue française De pédagogie, no. 157, Dec. 2006, pp. 103-18. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.604.
Andriessen, Jerry, et al., editors. Arguing to Learn. [], Springer Netherlands, 2003. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7.
Andriessen, Jerry, et al., editors. Arguing to Learn. [], Springer Netherlands, 2003. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. “L’argumentation dans la langue”. Langages, vol. 10, no. 42, PERSEE Program, 1976, pp. 5-27. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1976.2306.
Arppe, Antti, et al. “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology”. Corpora, vol. 5, no. 1, May 2010, pp. 1-27. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001.
Brundtland, Gro Harlem. “Our Common Future”. Earth and Us, Elsevier, 1991, pp. 29-31. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-1049-0.50009-5.
Bybee, Rodger W. “Science Education and the Science-Technology-Society (S-T-S) Theme”. Science Education, vol. 71, no. 5, Oct. 1987, pp. 667-83. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710504.
DEWHURST, D. W. “The Teaching of Controversial Issues”. Journal of Philosophy of Education, vol. 26, no. 2, Dec. 1992, pp. 153-6. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1992.tb00277.x.
Doury, Marianne. “La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires”. Langages, vol. 38, no. 154, 2004, pp. 59-73. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.2004.947.
Driver, Rosalind, et al. “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms”. Science Education, vol. 84, no. 3, May 2000, pp. 287-12. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a.
Erduran, Sibel, and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre, editors. “Argumentation in Science Education”. Science &Amp; Technology Education Library, Springer Netherlands, 2007. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2.
Grize, Jean-Blaise. Logique Naturelle Et Communication. [], Presses Universitaires de France, 1996. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.grize.1996.01.
Henderson, Jenny, and Vic Lally. “Problem Solving and Controversial Issues in Biotechnology”. Journal of Biological Education, vol. 22, no. 2, June 1988, pp. 144-50. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1988.9654964.
Lewis, Jenny, and John Leach. “Discussion of Socio‐scientific Issues: The Role of Science Knowledge”. International Journal of Science Education, vol. 28, no. 11, Sept. 2006, pp. 1267-8. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439348.
Mayberry, Maralee. “Reproductive and Resistant Pedagogies: The Comparative Roles of Collaborative Learning and Feminist Pedagogy in Science Education”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 35, no. 4, Apr. 1998, pp. 443-59. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199804)35:4<443::aid-tea14>3.0.co;2-a.
Menary, Richard. “Introduction to the Special Issue on 4E Cognition”. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. 9, no. 4, Nov. 2010, pp. 459-63. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6.
Mercer, Neil. “The Quality of Talk in children’s Collaborative Activity in the Classroom”. Learning and Instruction, vol. 6, no. 4, Dec. 1996, pp. 359-77. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(96)00021-7.
Mercer, Neil. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking. [], Routledge, 2007. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203946657.
Mercer, Neil, and Claire Sams. “Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths Problems”. Language and Education, vol. 20, no. 6, Nov. 2006, pp. 507-28. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.2167/le678.0.
Micheli, Raphaël. “Esquisse d’une Typologie Des différents Modes De sémiotisation Verbale De l’émotion”. Semen, no. 35, Apr. 2013. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9795.
Müller, Marcus O., and Cees A.M. Mulder. Proceedings Before the European Patent Office. [], Edward Elgar Publishing, 27 Feb. 2015. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710101.
Muntigl, Peter, and William Turnbull. “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 29, no. 3, Mar. 1998, pp. 225-56. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(97)00048-9.
Newton, Paul, et al. “The Place of Argumentation in the Pedagogy of School Science”. International Journal of Science Education, vol. 21, no. 5, May 1999, pp. 553-76. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570.
Osborne, Jonathan, et al. “Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 41, no. 10, Dec. 2004, pp. 994-1020. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035.
Oulton, Chris, et al. “Reconceptualizing the Teaching of Controversial Issues”. International Journal of Science Education, vol. 26, no. 4, Mar. 2004, pp. 411-23. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072746.
Plantin, Christian. “Les séquences Discursives émotionnées : Définition Et Application à Des données tirées De La Base CLAPI”. SHS Web of Conferences, vol. 1, EDP Sciences, 2012, pp. 629-42. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20120100218.
Plantin, Christian. Les Bonnes Raisons Des émotions. [], Peter Lang CH, 7 May 2011. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0070-6.
Plantin, Christian. “L’argumentation”. Que Sais-je ?, Presses Universitaires de France, 1 Aug. 2005. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01.
Polo, Claire, et al. “Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: A Model”. Argumentation, vol. 31, no. 2, July 2016, pp. 301-29. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9407-5.
Polo, Claire, et al. “Emotional Positioning As a Cognitive Resource for Arguing”. Pragmatics and Society, vol. 8, no. 3, Oct. 2017, pp. 323-54. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.01pol.
Polo, Claire, et al. “Group Emotions: The Social and Cognitive Functions of Emotions in Argumentation”. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 11, no. 2, May 2016, pp. 123-56. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8.
Polo, Claire, et al. “Quand Construire Une Position émotionnelle, c’est Choisir Une Conclusion Argumentative : Le Cas d’un Café-débat Sur l’eau Potable Au Mexique1”. Semen, no. 35, Apr. 2013. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9800.
Pomerantz, Anita. “Agreeing and Disagreeing With Assessments”. Asking and Telling in Conversation, Oxford University Press, 22 Apr. 2021, pp. 11-59. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190927431.003.0002.
Sadler, Troy D., and Samantha R. Fowler. “A Threshold Model of Content Knowledge Transfer for Socioscientific Argumentation”. Science Education, vol. 90, no. 6, 2006, pp. 986-1004. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165.
Sadler, Troy D., and Dana L. Zeidler. “The Significance of Content Knowledge for Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: Applying Genetics Knowledge to Genetic Engineering Issues”. Science Education, vol. 89, no. 1, 2004, pp. 71-93. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023.
Sandoval, William A. “Understanding students’ Practical Epistemologies and Their Influence on Learning through Inquiry”. Science Education, vol. 89, no. 4, 2005, pp. 634-56. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065.
Schwarz, Baruch B., and Amnon Glassner. “The Role of Floor Control and of Ontology in Argumentative Activities With Discussion-Based Tools”. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 2, no. 4, Oct. 2007, pp. 449-78. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2.
Simon, Jean-Pascal, and Michel Tozzi, editors. Paroles De Philosophes En Herbe. [], UGA Éditions, 2017. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ugaeditions.7176.
SIMONNEAUX, Laurence. “L’argumentation Dans Les débats En Classe Sur Une Technoscience controversée”. Aster, vol. 37, no. 37, p. 243, PERSEE Program, 2003. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/8825.
Stahl, Gerry. Group Cognition. [], The MIT Press, 2006. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3372.001.0001.
Toulmin, Stephen E. The Uses of Argument. [], Cambridge University Press, 7 July 2003. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840005.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. [], Cambridge University Press, 17 Nov. 2003. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511616389.
Wegerif, Rupert, et al. “Widening Access to Educational Opportunities through Teaching Children How to Reason Together”. Westminster Studies in Education, vol. 27, no. 2, Oct. 2004, pp. 143-56. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/0140672040270205.
Zeidler, Dana L., et al. “Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education”. Science Education, vol. 89, no. 3, 2005, pp. 357-7. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048.
Abelson, R. & Schank, R. C. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. An inquiry into human knowledge structures. New Jersey.
Aikenhead, G. (1992). The integration of STS into science education. Theory into practice, 31(1), 27-35.
Ainsworth, S., Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Threapleton, K., Crook, C., O’Malley, C. & Buda, M. (2010). Anonymity in classroom voting and debating. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 365-378.
Allwood, J., Traum, D. & Jokinen, K. (2000). Cooperation, Dialogue and Ethics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 871-914.
Albe, V. (2009a). L’enseignement de controverses socioscientifiques. Éducation & didactique, 3(1), 45-76.
Albe, V. (2009b). Enseigner des controverses. Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes.
Albe, V. & Simonneaux, L. (2002). L’enseignement des questions scientifiques socialement vives dans l’enseignement agricole : quelles sont les intentions des enseignants ? Aster, 34, 131-156.
Albe, V. (2006). Procédés discursifs et rôles sociaux d’élèves en groupes de discussion sur une controverse socio-scientifique. Revue française de pédagogie, 157, 103-118.
Alexander, R. J. (2017). Towards Dialogic Teaching: rethinking classroomtalk (5e éd.). Dialogos.
Amossy, R. (2006). L’argumentation dans le discours. Armand Colin.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Springer Netherlands.
Andriessen, J., Pardijs, M., Baker, M. (2013). Getting on and Getting Along: Tension in the Developement of Collaborations. Dans M. Baker, S. Järvelä & J. Andriessen (dir.), Affective Learning Together (p. 205-228). Routledge.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. Dans R. K. Sawyer (dir.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2e éd., p. 443-460). Cambridge University Press.
Aristote. 2007. Rhétorique. Présentation et traduction par Pierre Chiron. Paris : Garnier-Flammarion.
Arppe, A., Gilquin G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. et Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5, 1-27.
Asterhan, C. S. C. (2013). Epistemic and interpersonal dimensions of peer argumentation. Dans M. Baker, S. Järvelä & J. Andriessen (dir.), Affective LearningTogether (p. 251-271). Routledge.
Audigier, F. (1999). L’éducation à la citoyenneté. Lyon : INRP.
Baker, M., Järvelä, S. & Andriessen, J. (Dir.) (2013). Affective Learning Together: Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning. Routledge.
Baker, M., Quignard M., Lund, K. & van Amelsvoort, M. (2002). Designing a computer-supported collaborative learning situation for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam. 55-61.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the Novel [1934/35] (trad. C. Emerson & M. J. Holquist, éd. M. J. Holquist). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin : University of Texas Press. 258-422.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1988). Politeness. Cambridge University Press
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future. Commission mondiale sur l’environnement et le développement. Organisation des Nations unies.
Buty, C. & Plantin, C. (2008). L’argumentation à l’épreuve de l’enseignement des sciences et vice-versa. Argumenter en classe de sciences. Du débat à l’apprentissage (p. 17-42). Lyon : INRP.
Buty, C. & Plantin, C. (2008). Argumenter en classe de sciences: du débat à l’apprentissage. Lyon : INRP.
Bybee, R. W. (1987). Science education and the science-technology-society (S-T-S) theme. Science Education, 71(5), 667-683.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.
Carrington, B. & Troyna, B. (1988). Children and controversial issues: strategies for the early and middle years of schooling. Psychology Press.
Chevallard, Y. (1992). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique : perspectives apportées par une approche anthropologique. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 12(1), 73-112.
Clarke, P. (1992). Teaching controversial issues. Green Teacher, (31), 29-32.
Cornelius, L. L. & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498.
Cosnier, J. (1994). Psychologie des émotions et des sentiments. Paris : Retz.
Damasio, A. R. (1995). L’Erreur de Descartes. Les raisons des émotions. Paris : Odile Jacob.
Dearden, P. (1981). Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Planning, 8(1), 3-19.
Denis, A., Quignard, M., Fréard, D., Détienne, F., Baker, M. (2012). Détection de conflits dans les communautés épistémiques en ligne. Proceedings of TALN 2012 (2012, Grenoble, France). Dans G. Antoniadis, H. Blanchon, G. Sérasset (dir.), Actes de la conférence conjointe JEP-TALN-RECITAL (p. 351-358). Grenoble : GETALP-LIG.
Désautels, J. & Larochelle, M. (1998). The epistemology of students: The « thingified » nature of scientific knowledge. International handbook of science education, 115-126.
Dewhurst, D. W. (1992). The teaching of controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26(2), 153-163.
Dillenbourg, P. & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. Dans M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (dir.). New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (p. 525-552). Springer.
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1981). Le développement social de l’intelligence. InterEditions.
Douaire, J. (2004). Argumentation et disciplines scolaires. Saint-Fons : INRP.
Doury, M. (2004). La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires. Langages, (2), 59-73.
Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. Dans R. Millar, J. Leach & J. Osborne (dir.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (p. 187-206).
Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Dordrecht : Springer.
Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2002). Re-conceptualizing» scaffolding » and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2/1), 40-54.
Goffman, E. (1974). Les rites d’interaction. Paris : Éditions de Minuit.
Grize, J. B. (1990). Logique et langage. Ophrys.
Grize, J. B. (1996). Logique naturelle et communications. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
Guerrini Jean-Claude. (2015). Les valeurs dans l’argumentation. Structures axiologiques et dimension axiologique des disputes (Thèse de doctorat). Lyon : Université Lyon 2.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.
Hekmat, I, Micheli, R., Rabatel, A. (dir.) (2013). Modes de sémiotisation et fonctions argumentatives des émotions. Semen, 35.
Henderson, J. & Lally, V. (1988). Problem solving and controversial issues in biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 22(2), 144-150.
Järvenoja, H. & Järvelä, S. (2013). Regulating Emotions Together for Motivated Collaboration. Dans M. Baker, S. Järvelä, J. Andriessen (dir.), Affective Learning Together (p. 162-181). Routledge.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2006). Les personnes peuvent-elles agir sur la réalité ? La théorie critique et la marée noire du Prestige. Dans A. Legardez & L. Simonneaux (dir.), L’école à l’épreuve de l’actualité : enseigner les questions vives (p. 105-118). ESF Éditeur.
Joshua, S. & Dupin, J.-J. (1993). Introduction à la didactique des mathématiques et des sciences. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
Kelly, T. E. (1986). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher’s role. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 113-138.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1988). La vie de laboratoire : la production des faits scientifiques. Editions la Decouverte : Paris. Traduction par Michel Biezunski de Laboratory Life : The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills : Sage Publications [1979].
Legardez, A. (2006). Enseigner des questions socialement vives : quelques points de repères. Dans A. Legardez & L. Simonneaux (dir.), L’école à l’épreuve de l’actualité (p. 19-32). Paris : ESF.
Lewis, J. & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
Mayberry, M. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 443-459.
Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche (MENESR). (2015). Le socle commun de connaissances, de compétences et de culture. Décret du 31 mars 2015, JO du 2 avril 2015.
Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche (MENESR). (2006). Le socle commun de connaissances et de compétences, Tout ce qu’il est indispensable de maîtriser à la fin de la scolarité obligatoire. Décret du 11 juillet 2006. Ed. CNDP.
Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
Muller-Mirza, N. (2008). Préface. Dans C. Buty & C. Plantin. Argumenter en classe de sciences, INRP, 7‑16.
Mullins, D., Deiglmayr, A. & Spada, H. (2013). Motivation and emotion shaping knowledge co-construction. Dans M. Baker, S. Järvelä & J. Andriessen (dir.), Affective Learning Together (p. 139-161). Routledge.
Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225-256.
Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Ngo, T. T. H. (2011). Argumentation et didactique du français langue étrangère pour un public vietnamien (Thèse de doctorat). Lyon : Université Lyon 2.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J. & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235-258.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1988) [1958]. Traité de l’argumentation : la nouvelle rhétorique. Université de Bruxelles.
Plantin, C. (2016). Dictionnaire de l’argumentation - Une introduction notionnelle aux études d’argumentation. Lyon : ENS Éditions.
Plantin, C. (2015). Les séquences discursives émotionnées : définition et application à des données tirées de la base CLAPI. SHS Web of Conferences, 3e congrès mondial de linguistique française,1, 629-642.
Plantin, C., Doury, M. & Traverso, V. (2000). Les émotions dans les interactions. Presses universitaires de Lyon.
Polo, C., Lagrange-Lanaspre, S. (2019). Metaphorical Reasoning Together: Embodied Conceptualization in a Community of Philosophical Inquiry. Actes de la Conférence sur l’Apprentissage Collaboratif Assisté par Ordinateur (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL). Lyon, 17-21 juin.
Polo, C. (2018). Can experiencing non-linear scripting affect argumentative emotional positioning? Symposium Argumentation, emotion and scripting: learning sciences and interactive narrative design. EARLI SIG 20-26 Conference “Argumentation and Inquiry as Venues for Civic Education”. Jérusalem, 8-12 octobre.
Polo, C., Plantin, C. Lund, K., Niccolai, G. P. (2017a). Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: a Model. Argumentation, 31(2), 301-329.
Polo, C., Plantin, C. Lund, K., Niccolai, G. P (2017b). Emotional Positioning as a Cognitive Resource for Arguing. Pragmatics and Society, 8(3), 323-354.
Polo, C., K. Lund, C. Plantin, G. P. Niccolai (2016b). Group Emotions: The Social and Cognitive Functions of Emotions in Argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123-156.
Polo, C., Plantin, C. Lund, K., Niccolai, G. P. (2016a), Words to Reason and Argue about Drinking Water Management: Comparing Debates from Mexican, US and French Schools. Dans D. Mohammed & M. Lewínski (dir.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015 (Vol. II, 821-838). Londres : College Publications.
Polo, C., Plantin, C., Lund, K., Niccolai, G. (2013b). Quand construire une position émotionnelle, c’est choisir une conclusion argumentative : le cas d’un café-débat sur l’eau potable au Mexique. Semen, 35, 41-63.
Polo, C., Plantin, C., Lund, K., Niccolai, G. P. (2013a). Cohering Without Converging: Students’ Use of Doxa, Norms and Values while Debating about SSI (Mexico, USA, France). Actes de la Conférence de l’Association Européenne d’Education Scientifique (ESERA). Nicosie, Chypre, 2-7 septembre 2012, 1387-1399.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. Dans J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (dir.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (p. 57-101). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer supported collaborative learning, 69-97.
Sadler, T. D. & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
Schwarz, B. & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449-478.
Sensevy, G. (2007). Des catégories pour décrire et comprendre l’action didactique. Dans G. Sensevy & A. Mercier, Agir ensemble : Éléments de théorisation de l’action conjointe du professeur et des élèves (p. 13-49). Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes.
Simon, J. P. & Tozzi, M. (dir.). (2017). Paroles de philosophes en herbe. Grenoble : UGA Éditions.
Simonneaux, L. (2006). Quel enjeu éducatif pour les questions biotechnologiques ? Dans A. Legardez & L. Simonneaux, L’école à l’épreuve de l’actualité : enseigner des questions vives (p. 33-61). Issy-les-Moulineaux : ESF.
Simonneaux, L. (2003). L’argumentation dans les débats en classe sur une technoscience controversée. Aster, 37, Interactions langagières 1, 189-214.
Simonneaux, L. (1995). Approche didactique et muséologique des biotechnologies de la reproduction bovine (Thèse de doctorat). Lyon : Université Claude Bernard.
Simonneaux, L. & Bourdon, A. (1998). Antigen, antibody, antibiotics… What did you say that was? Dans H. Bayrhuber & H. Brinkman, What-Why-How? Research in Didaktik of Biology (p. 233_242). Kiel : IPN.
Simonneaux, L. & Simonneaux, J. (2005). Argumentation sur des questions socioscientifiques. Didaskalia, 27, 79-108.
Sins, P. & Karlgren, K. (2013). Identifying and Overcoming Tension in Interdisciplinary Teamwork in Profesional Development. Dans M. Baker, S. Järvelä & J. Andriessen (dir.), Affective Learning Together (p. 185-203). Routledge.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Cambridge : MIT Press.
Walton, D. N. (1992). The place of emotion in argument. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wegerif, R., Littleton, K., Dawes, L., Mercer, N. & Rowe, D. (2004). Widening access to educational opportunities through teaching children how to reason together. Westminster Studies in Education, 27(2), 143‑156.
Wegerif, R. & Mercer, N. (1997). A dialogical framework for researching peer talk. Language and Education Library, 12, 49-64.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. Dans R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse & H. Spada, Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication, 15-37.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Débat fertile
Le Débat fertile
Ce livre est cité par
Déduit, Camille. Polo, Claire. (2022) La dimension affective de l’éducation au changement climatique : étude mixte au cycle 3 de l’enseignement primaire français. Éducation relative à l'environnement. DOI: 10.4000/ere.8768
Polo, Claire. (2022) L’exploration de controverses comme argumentation socio-cognitivo-émotionelle : débattre de la gestion de l’eau potable de façon constructive. Questions vives recherches en éducation. DOI: 10.4000/questionsvives.6824
Le Débat fertile
Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks
