This study aimed to overview theories of reflective argumentation and explore methods that support teaching and learning. Reflective argumentation is an alternative paradigm that demonstrates the dialogic and dialectical nature of the argument through two-sided reasoning that weighs and synthesizes differences in diverse positions. A transition to reflective argumentation can contribute to resolving confirmation bias (from persuasive argumentation) and respecting diversity by acknowledging and responding to alternative positions. We proposed the following methods that support teaching and learning: multiple documents, graphic representational tools, explicit instruction in strategies with modeling, and collaborative discourse.
This study is meaningful in that it points out the problems of existing education developed mainly based on persuasive argumentation (e.g., debate, refutation) and proposes an alternative paradigm that demonstrates the nature of argumentation. Focusing on the gap between social and cognitive approaches to argumentation and considering various responses to different positions would deepen the understanding of argumentation, a complex communicative activity in which comprehension, expression, and learning are intertwined.