edscienceОбразование и наукаThe Education and science journal1994-56392310-5828RSVPU10.17853/1994-5639-2025-1-9-32edscience-4106Research ArticleПРОБЛЕМЫ МЕТОДОЛОГИИMETHODOLOGY PROBLEMSАргументационный ресурс в научной педагогике как объект исследованияArgumentation resource in scientific pedagogy as an object of researchhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7454-038XКоржуевА. В.KorzhuevA. V.

Коржуев Андрей Вячеславович – доктор педагогических наук, профессор, профессор кафедрымедицинской и биологической физики Института цифрового биодизайна и моделирования живых систем

Andrey V. Korzhuev – Dr. Sci. (Education), Professor, Department of Medical and Biological Physics

akorjuev@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5785-7297ЛесничукС. А.LesnichukS. A.

Лесничук Светлана Анатольевна – кандидат биологических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры биологической химии института Цифрового биодизайна и моделирования живых систем

Svetlana A. Lesnichuk – Cand. Sci. (Biology), Associate Professor, Department of Medical and Biological Physics

lesnichuk_s_a@staff.sechenov.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0030-4867КонтаровН. А.KontarovN. A.

Контаров Николай Александрович – кандидат биологических наук, доцент кафедры медицинской и биологической физики Института цифрового биодизайна и моделирования живых систем

Nikolai A. Kontarov – Cand. Sci. (Biology), Associate Professor, Department of Medical and Biological Physics

kontarov@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2141-6289ИкренниковаЮ. Б.IkrennikovaYu. B.

Икренникова Юлия Борисовна – кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры общеобразовательных дисциплин 

Yuliya B. Ikrennikova – Cand. Sci. (Education), Associate Professor, Department of General Educational Disciplines

ikren@yandex.ruПервый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И. М. СеченоваI. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityРоссийская государственная академия интеллектуальной собственностиRussian State Academy of Intellectual Property202501012025271932Copyright © Коржуев А.В., Лесничук С.А., Контаров Н.А., Икренникова Ю.Б., 20252025Коржуев А.В., Лесничук С.А., Контаров Н.А., Икренникова Ю.Б.Korzhuev A.V., Lesnichuk S.A., Kontarov N.A., Ikrennikova Y.B.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.edscience.ru/jour/article/view/4106

Введение. Практика анализа используемой учеными-педагогами в последние годы аргументации проявляет случаи некритичного отношения к мнениям научных авторитетов, искажения при формулировке определений, некорректности при теоретических и эмпирических обоснованиях выводов, что свидетельствует о попытках методологического «вмешательства» в аргументационное поле науки об образовании. Целью данной статьи является выявление специфики научной аргументации в педагогике и разделение критериев ее соответствия методологической рамке на две части: тезирование «жестких» и «мягких» требований. Методология, методы и методики. Методами исследования стали анализ записей научных диалогов, текстов статей, монографий и диссертаций по педагогике на предмет аргументационной корректности; анализ методологической литературы по проблемам аргументации в различных областях знания; метод разделения науковедческого аргументационного поля исходя из особенностей предмета исследования педагогики, возможности его дефиницирования и построения теоретических схем. Результатом проведенного исследования является определение требований к научным аргументам в педагогике, опосредованных спецификой ее предметного поля: «жесткие» требования, к соблюдению которых необходимо стремиться; «мягкие» требования, которые можно было бы обозначить «смягчающими обстоятельствами», позволяющими ученым-педагогам ответить на критику, в основе которой лежит сравнение педагогической аргументации с аналогичными процедурами в науках. Научная новизна заключается в обосновании деления аргументационного поля (как компонента методологии педагогики) на «жесткие» и «мягкие» соответствия аргументов научной педагогики методологической норме. Практическая значимость результатов состоит в возможности использования представленного материала в качестве учебного контента для обучающихся по программам педагогического образования как ориентира при выполнении выпускных квалификационных работ.

Introduction. The analysis of the argumentation employed by scientists and educators in recent years reveals a tendency to adopt an uncritical attitude towards the opinions of scientific authorities, as     well as distortions in the formulation of definitions and inaccuracies in both theoretical and empirical justifications of conclusions. These issues indicate attempts at methodological “interference” within the argumentative discourse in science education. Aim. The present research aims to identify the specifics of scientific argumentation in pedagogy and categorise the criteria for its compliance with the methodological framework into two parts: the formulation of “strict” and “soft” requirements. Methodology and research methods. The following research methods were employed: analysis of recordings of scientific dialogues, as well as texts from articles, monographs, and dissertations on pedagogy to assess argumentative correctness; analysis of methodological literature addressing the issues of argumentation across various fields of knowledge; and a method for dividing the field of scientific argumentation into two categories based on the characteristics of the subject of pedagogical research, including the potential for definition and the construction of theoretical frameworks. Results. The outcome of the study is the identification of the requirements for scientific arguments in pedagogy, shaped by the unique characteristics of its subject area. These requirements can be categorised into two types: “strict” requirements, which should be aspired to, and “soft” requirements, which can be described as mitigating circumstances that assist pedagogical researchers in addressing criticisms arising from comparisons between pedagogical argumentation and analogous processes in other scientific disciplines. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of this research lies in the justification for dividing the field of argumentation – an essential component of pedagogical methodology – into “hard” and “soft” criteria that align the arguments of scientific pedagogy with methodological norms. Practical significance of the results lies in the potential to utilise the presented material as educational content for students enrolled in pedagogical education programmes, serving as a guide for completing their final qualifying works.

научная педагогикааргументацияэмпирическиетеоретические и контекстуальные аргументыметодологическая корректность аргументации«жесткие» и «мягкие» критерииscientific pedagogyargumentationempiricaltheoretical and contextual argumentsmethodological correctness of argumentation“hard” and “soft” criteriaReferencesGhanizadeh A., Al-Hoorie A.H., Jahedizadeh S. Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Springer Cham; 2021. 195 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56711-8Ghanizadeh A., Al-Hoorie A.H., Jahedizadeh S. Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Springer Cham; 2021. 195 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56711-8Šeďová K., Šalamounová Z., Švaříček R., Sedláček M. Getting Dialogic Teaching into Classrooms. Singapore: Springer; 2020. 184 p. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9243-0Šeďová K., Šalamounová Z., Švaříček R., Sedláček M. Getting Dialogic Teaching into Classrooms. Singapore: Springer; 2020. 184 p. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9243-0Clinton J. Argument as Dialogue Across Difference: Engaging Youth in Public Literacies. New York, London: Routledge; 2017. 178 p. doi:10.4324/9781315619590Clinton J. Argument as Dialogue Across Difference: Engaging Youth in Public Literacies. New York, London: Routledge; 2017. 178 p. doi:10.4324/9781315619590Schwarz B.B., Baker M.J. Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2017. 294 р. doi:10.1017/9781316493960Schwarz B.B., Baker M.J. Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2017. 294 р. doi:10.1017/9781316493960Morrow R.A. Dialogue, critical thinking, and critical pedagogy. In: Peters M.A., ed. Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer; 2022:189–235. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_320-1.Morrow R.A. Dialogue, critical thinking, and critical pedagogy. In: Peters M.A., ed. Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer; 2022:189–235. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_320-1.Ellerton P., Kelly R. Creativity and critical thinking. In: Berry A., Buntting C., Corrigan D., Gunstone R., Jones A., eds. Education in the 21st Century: STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking. Springer International Publishing; 2021:9–27. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_2Ellerton P., Kelly R. Creativity and critical thinking. In: Berry A., Buntting C., Corrigan D., Gunstone R., Jones A., eds. Education in the 21st Century: STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking. Springer International Publishing; 2021:9–27. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_2Marangio K., Carpendale J., Cooper R., et al. Supporting the development of science pre-service teachers’ creativity and critical thinking in secondary science initial teacher education. Research in Science Education. 2024;54:65–81. doi:10.1007/s11165-023-10104-xMarangio K., Carpendale J., Cooper R., et al. Supporting the development of science pre-service teachers’ creativity and critical thinking in secondary science initial teacher education. Research in Science Education. 2024;54:65–81. doi:10.1007/s11165-023-10104-xSpector J.M., Ma S. Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: from artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learn. 2019;6(8). doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0088-zSpector J.M., Ma S. Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: from artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learn. 2019;6(8). doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0088-zAbrami P.C., Bernard R.M., Borokhovski E., Waddington D.I., Wade C.A., Persson T. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015;85(2):275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063Abrami P.C., Bernard R.M., Borokhovski E., Waddington D.I., Wade C.A., Persson T. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015;85(2):275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063Ennis R.H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: a vision. Topoi. 2018;37:165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4Ennis R.H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: a vision. Topoi. 2018;37:165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4Gronostay D. To argue or not to argue? The role of personality traits, argumentativeness, episte mological beliefs and assigned positions for students’ participation in controversial political classroom discussions. Unterrichtswissenschaft. 2019;47:117–135. doi:10.1007/s42010-018-00033-4Gronostay D. To argue or not to argue? The role of personality traits, argumentativeness, episte mological beliefs and assigned positions for students’ participation in controversial political classroom discussions. Unterrichtswissenschaft. 2019;47:117–135. doi:10.1007/s42010-018-00033-4Asterhan C.S.C., Schwarz B.B. Argumentation for learning: well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist. 2016;51(2):164–187. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458Asterhan C.S.C., Schwarz B.B. Argumentation for learning: well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist. 2016;51(2):164–187. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458Rapanta C., Macagno F. Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: A pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3). doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.546Rapanta C., Macagno F. Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: A pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3). doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.546Martínez C.J.P., Catasús G.M., Fontanillas R.T. Impact of using learning analytics in asynchronous online discussions in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020;17:39. doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00217-yMartínez C.J.P., Catasús G.M., Fontanillas R.T. Impact of using learning analytics in asynchronous online discussions in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020;17:39. doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00217-yLommi S. Causal and epistemic relevance in appeals to authority. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Analitica. 2015;6(1). doi:10.13130/2037-4445/4673Lommi S. Causal and epistemic relevance in appeals to authority. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Analitica. 2015;6(1). doi:10.13130/2037-4445/4673Rapanta C. Argumentation as critically oriented pedagogical dialogue. Informal Logic. 2019;39(1). doi:10.22329/il.v39i1.5116Rapanta C. Argumentation as critically oriented pedagogical dialogue. Informal Logic. 2019;39(1). doi:10.22329/il.v39i1.5116Kallio H., Virta K., Kallio M. Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018;7(2):94–122. doi:10.17583/ijep.2018.2789Kallio H., Virta K., Kallio M. Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018;7(2):94–122. doi:10.17583/ijep.2018.2789Zenker F. Introduction: reasoning, argumentation, and critical thinking instruction. Topoi. 2018;37(1):91–92. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9416-xZenker F. Introduction: reasoning, argumentation, and critical thinking instruction. Topoi. 2018;37(1):91–92. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9416-xSnaza N. Aleatory entanglements: (post)humanism, hospitality and attunement – a response to Hugo Letiche. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2018;14:256–272. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1398700Snaza N. Aleatory entanglements: (post)humanism, hospitality and attunement – a response to Hugo Letiche. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2018;14:256–272. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1398700Letiche H. Bewildering pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2017;14:236–255. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1335662Letiche H. Bewildering pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2017;14:236–255. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1335662Alexander Н.A. What is critical about critical pedagogy? Conflicting conceptions of criticism in the curriculum. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2016;50(10):903–916. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1228519Alexander Н.A. What is critical about critical pedagogy? Conflicting conceptions of criticism in the curriculum. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2016;50(10):903–916. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1228519Alexander P.A. Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: challenges of conceptualization, complexity, and competence. Educational Psychologist. 2017;25(4):307–314. doi:10.1080/00461520.2017.1350181Alexander P.A. Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: challenges of conceptualization, complexity, and competence. Educational Psychologist. 2017;25(4):307–314. doi:10.1080/00461520.2017.1350181Leś T. The research potential of educational theory: on the specific characteristics of the issues of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017;49(14):1428–1440. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1313716Leś T. The research potential of educational theory: on the specific characteristics of the issues of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017;49(14):1428–1440. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1313716Koivuniemi M., Järvenoja H., Järvelä S. Teacher education students’ strategic activities in challenging collaborative learning situations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2018;19:109–123. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.002Koivuniemi M., Järvenoja H., Järvelä S. Teacher education students’ strategic activities in challenging collaborative learning situations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2018;19:109–123. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.002Kim M.-Y., Wilkinson I.A.G. What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2019;21:70–86. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003Kim M.-Y., Wilkinson I.A.G. What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2019;21:70–86. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003Irawan N., Valentina T.F. The language of argumentation: a book review. Journal of Language and Education. 2021;7(2):274–276. doi:10.17323/jle.2021.12538Irawan N., Valentina T.F. The language of argumentation: a book review. Journal of Language and Education. 2021;7(2):274–276. doi:10.17323/jle.2021.12538Boogaart R., Jansen H., van Leeuwen M. The Language of Argumentation. Cham: Springer; 2021. 323 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9Boogaart R., Jansen H., van Leeuwen M. The Language of Argumentation. Cham: Springer; 2021. 323 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9Rapanta C., Macagno F. The dimensions of argumentative texts and their assessment. Studia Paedagogica. 2020;24(4):11–44. doi:10.5817/SP2019-4-1Rapanta C., Macagno F. The dimensions of argumentative texts and their assessment. Studia Paedagogica. 2020;24(4):11–44. doi:10.5817/SP2019-4-1Nussbaum M.E., Dove I.J., Putney L.G. Bridging dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory through critical questions. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3). doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.548Nussbaum M.E., Dove I.J., Putney L.G. Bridging dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory through critical questions. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3). doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.548

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.