"Be rational!" Epistemic aims and socio-cognitive tension in argumentation about dietary choices.

Argumentation is a social practice that can lead to epistemic outcomes, that is, to the construction of knowledge. Recent research in collaborative learning has pointed out the significance of affective and motivational aspects, as well as the influence of socio-relational concerns, which have been found to frequently take priority over epistemic ones. Our research objective is to investigate how the epistemic and socio-relational dimensions of students' argumentative interactions are intertwined. We apply discourse analysis to examine the interactions in a small group of four 11th-graders evaluating the nutritional acceptability of omnivorous and vegetarian diets. The epistemic dimension is analyzed in terms of the aims pursued by the participants and the epistemic outcomes achieved. The socio-relational dimension is analyzed in terms of fluctuations of interpersonal tensions and their relaxations. The results show a convergence of participants' epistemic aims and the epistemic statuses of the options. Most of the epistemic outcomes are produced in sequences in which socio-cognitive tension arises and then relaxes. Enduring high socio-cognitive tension and overcoming conflict seem to have encouraged the adoption of epistemic aims. Moreover, our findings suggest that driven by epistemic aims in high socio-cognitive tensed contexts, students can refine the conditions by which they engage in argumentation. These results call for further investigating on what constitutes an appropriate or productive level of interpersonal tension for learning. Educational implications are related to the design of argumentative learning environments promoting epistemic aims and outcomes through the encouragement of suitable socio-cognitive climates leading to them.

Emotional Tension as a Frame for Argumentation and Decision-Making: Vegetarian vs. Omnivorous Diets.

Argumentative discourse has a complexity that is not entirely captured by purely structural analyses. In arguments about socio-scientific issues (SSI), a range of dimensions, besides scientific knowledge, including values, ethical concerns, cultural habits, or emotions, are mobilized. The relationship between argumentation and emotions is now drawing attention of researchers. Our focus is on the dynamic interactions among emotions and scientific evidence. We draw from Plantin, who proposed that emotions are mobilized as argumentative resources alongside knowledge. The goal of our study is to examine in which ways emotional tension frames the construction of arguments about vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets (ODs) with a group of four preservice teachers. The results suggest that the interactions between the group emotional tension and the evaluation of evidence drive a change toward a decision that would be emotionally acceptable for all participants. Participants attended to the epistemic dimension, weighing evidence, and values about the choices, but the emotional framing took priority. We suggest that the analysis of this emotive framing may be a fruitful approach for sophisticated studies of argumentation beyond structural issues.