Abstract The inclusion of argumentative practices in classrooms as an epistemic tool to foster learning and reasoning has become widespread. However, studies on argumentation show that not all kinds of argumentation are equally effective in fostering this potential, and that argumentative goals are determining factors in the argumentative discourse — in particular, persuasive and deliberative goals, the latter posited as being the ones with the greatest epistemic potential. Eighty students in the Master in Secondary Teacher Training took up positions on an energy dilemma and wrote two argumentative texts, before and after a dialogue with a classmate who defended the opposite thesis. Of the total of 40 dyads, 21 conversed with a persuasive goal and 19 with a deliberative goal. The results show that the dialogue had a positive effect on the argumentative quality under both conditions. However, in the consensus group, the bias of the post-text diminished while meta-statements and counterarguments increased. A case study of one dyad under each condition illustrates these differences.

中文翻译：

---

论证目标对论证对话和书面论证质量的影响/书面论证质量论和对话论证

摘要在课堂上将议论性实践作为一种促进学习和推理的认知工具已经广泛普及。但是，关于辩论的研究表明，并不是所有的辩论都可以同样有效地发挥这种潜力，并且辩论目标是决定辩论话语的因素，尤其是说服性和审议性目标，后者被认为是最大的目标。认识潜力。在与一名为相反论题辩护的同学进行对话之前和之后，中学教师培训硕士课程中的80名学生就能量困境陷入困境，并写了两篇论据。在总共40个二元组中，有21个具有说服力的目标进行了交谈，有19个具有协商性的目标。结果表明，在两种情况下，对话对论证质量都有积极影响。然而，在共识小组中，后文本的偏见有所减少，而元陈述和反议则有所增加。对每种情况下一个二元组的案例研究说明了这些差异。