Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito
FrancoAngeli Journals

Saggi e ricerche

N. 1 (2026): Formazione superiore per competenze digitali e trasversali: approcci innovativi

Bridging the Gap: The Development of Argumentative Skills in Italian Higher Education. A National Case Study

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/exioa1-2026oa23217
Inviata
6 luglio 2026
Pubblicato
21-07-2026

Abstract

Argumentative skills are central to persuasion, problem-solving, and self-advocacy, all abilities connected with developing a critical and personal perspective on information. Despite their relevance, argumentative approaches are not always systematically integrated in Higher Education (HE). This research examines the case of Italian HE institutions by analysing the syllabi of 133 courses from 47 public universities through stratified random sampling. The analysis investigates the presence and relevance of argumentative skills across learning objectives, teaching activities, and assessment practices. Findings revealed a limited and often fragmented inclusion of argumentative skills, frequently reduced to general comprehension and communication abilities, with weak alignment across curricular components. While references to argumentation are present, they often lack depth and coherent pedagogical integration. These findings point to the need for a more intentional and structured approach to developing argumentative skills, including a reconsideration of current curriculum design and a clearer integration and alignment of argumentation and critical thinking within teaching and assessment practices.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. ANVUR (2012). TECO: Test sulle competenze. https://www.anvur.it/teco/.
  2. ANVUR (2020). La rilevazione TECO 2020. https://www.anvur.it/attivita/ava/teco-test-sulle-competenze/rilevazioni-teco/la-rilevazione-teco-2020/.
  3. Bain K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.
  4. Balaban-Sali J. (2012). New media literacies of communication students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(4): 265-277. Doi: 10.30935/cedtech/6083.
  5. Biesta G. (2015). Resisting the seduction of the global education measurement industry: Notes on the social psychology of PISA. Ethics and Education, 10(3): 348-360. Doi: 10.1080/17449642.2015.1106030.
  6. Biggs J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  7. Bozkurt A., Xiao F., Lambert S., Pazurek A., Crompton H., Koseoglu S., Farrow R., Bond M., Nerantzi C., Honeychurch S., Bali M., Dron J., Mir K., Stewart, B. Stewart B., Costello E., Mason J., Stracke C., Romero-Hall E., & Jandric P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape, 18(1): 53-130. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7636568.
  8. Calvani A., Fini A., & Ranieri M. (2009). La competenza digitale nella scuola. Modelli teorici e strumenti di valutazione. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 4: 299-308.
  9. Colombo A. (2018). Il testo argomentativo: Presupposti pedagogici e modelli di analisi. In: A. Colombo (Eds.). I pro e i contro (pp. 59-84). La Nuova Italia.
  10. Commissione Europea (2020). Digital education action plan 2021-2027: Resetting education and training for the digital age. European Education Area. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan.
  11. Corsini C. (2020). I Test TECO sulle competenze in università: problemi e prospettive. Pedagogia Più Didattica, 6(1). Doi: 10.14605/PD612004.
  12. Cortiana P. (2017). Multimodalità e scrittura tradizionale a confronto: Un intervento nella scuola secondaria. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3). Doi: 10.17471/2499-4324/915.
  13. Crudele F., & Raffaghelli J. E. (2023). Ripensare le mappe argomentative nei nuovi contesti multimodali: Una revisione narrativa della letteratura. Media Education, 14(2). Doi: 10.36253/me-13801.
  14. Crudele F. & Raffaghelli J.E. (2024). Argumentative Skills in Higher Education: An analysis of university course Syllabus. [Data set]. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13255690.
  15. Danielsson K., & Selander S. (2021). Working with multimodal mexts in education. In: K. Danielsson & S. Selander (Eds.), Multimodal texts in disciplinary education. A comprehensive framework (pp. 25-43). Springer. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-63960-0_4.
  16. De Rossi M. & Fedeli M. (2022). Costruire percorsi di faculty development. Pensa Multimedia.
  17. Dwi H., & Purwati O. (2022). Improving students’ critical thinking through guided discovery learning method in argumentative texts reading. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 5(4): 701-705. Doi: 10.34050/elsjish.v5i4.24826.
  18. Filter bubble (Accessed August 12, 2024). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble.
  19. Frau-Meigs D. (2019). Information disorders: Risks and opportunities for digital media and information literacy?. Medijske Studije [Media Studies], 10(19): 10-28. Doi: 10.20901/ms.10.19.1.
  20. Hamilton L., & Corbett-Whittier C. (2013). Defining case study in education research. In: L. Hamilton & C. Corbett-Whittier (Eds.). Using case study in education research (pp. 1-18). SAGE Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781473913851.
  21. INDIRE (2011). Insegnare a leggere in Europa: Contesti, politiche e pratiche – Eurydice Italia. Commissione Europea-Eurydice. https://eurydice.indire.it/pubblicazioni/insegnare-a-leggere-in-europa-contesti-politiche-e-pratiche/.
  22. INVALSI (2015). Indagine OCSE PISA 2015: I risultati degli studenti italiani in scienze, matematica e lettura. https://www.invalsi.it/invalsi/ri/pisa2015/doc/rapporto_PISA_2015.pdf.
  23. INVALSI (2018). Risultati OCSE-PISA 2018. https://www.invalsi.it/invalsi/ri/pisa2018.php?page=pisa2018_it_07.
  24. INVALSI (2022). OCSE PISA 2022 I Risultati degli studenti Italiani in matematica, lettura e scienze. https://invalsi-areaprove.cineca.it/docs/2024/Indagini%20internazionali/RAPPORTI/Rapporto_nazionale_PISA2022_.pdf.
  25. Iordanou K., & Rapanta C. (2021). “Argue With Me”: A Method for Developing Argument Skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631203.
  26. Jandrić P., MacKenzie A., & Knox J. (2024). Postdigital research: Genealogies, challenges, and future perspectives. Postdigital Science and Education, 6(2): 409-415. Doi: 10.1007/s42438-022-00306-3.
  27. Koçoğlu A., & Kanadli S. (2024). Effect of argumentation-based instruction on student achievement: A mixed-research synthesis. Asia Pacific Education Review. Doi: 10.1007/s12564-024-09945-6.
  28. Knox J. (2019). What does the ‘postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical perspectives on the digital, with implications for educational research and practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2): 357-370. Doi: 10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y.
  29. Kuhn D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
  30. Lucisano P. (2016). La misura delle misure e la validità educativa. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 16: 59-70. https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/sird/article/view/1775.
  31. Lund B., & Wang T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?. Library Hi Tech News, 40(3). Doi: 10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009.
  32. Moretti G. (2010). Lucia Lumbelli (2009). La comprensione come problema. Il punto di vista cognitivo. Roma - Bari: Laterza. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal), 1(2). https://www.ledonline.it/index.php/ECPS-Journal/article/view/121/97.
  33. Raffaghelli J. E. (2017). Data Literacy in the context of Big and Open Data: An educational challenge. Formazione & insegnamento, 15(3): 299-324. Doi: 10.7346/-fei-XV-03-17_21.
  34. Raffaghelli J. E. (2018). Educators’ Data Literacy: Supporting critical perspectives in the context of a «datafied» education. In: M. K. Borges, L. Menichetti, & M. Ranieri (Eds.). Teacher education & training on it between Europe and Latin America (pp. 91-109). Aracne Editrice. Doi: 10.4399/97888255210238.
  35. Raffaghelli J. E., & Stewart B. (2020). Centering complexity in ‘educators’ data literacy’ to support future practices in faculty development: A systematic review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4): 435-455. Doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1696301.
  36. Raffaghelli J. E., & Grion V. (2023). Beyond Just Metrics: For a Renewed Approach to Assessment in Higher Education. In: J. E. Raffaghelli & A. Sangrà (Eds.). Data Cultures in Higher Education: Emergent Practices and the Challenge Ahead (pp. 89-121). Springer International Publishing. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-24193-2_4.
  37. Raffaghelli J. E. (2024). (Post)Digital Scholarship. Professionalità accademica e trasformazione tecnologica in università. Manoscritto 2.0. Pensa Multimedia. https://www.pensamultimedia.it/libro/9791255681205.
  38. Ranieri M., Cuomo S., & Biagini G. (2024). Scuola e intelligenza artificiale. Tascabili Faber.
  39. Rapanta C., Garcia-Mila M., & Gilabert S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4): 483-520. Doi: 10.3102/0034654313487606.
  40. Rivoltella P. C. (2020). Nuovi alfabeti. Educazione e culture nella società post-mediale. Scholè.
  41. Romero-Hall E., & Li L. (2020). A Syllabi analysis of social media for teaching and learning courses. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 14(1): 13-8. Doi: 10.22329/JTL.V14I1.6246.
  42. Scolari C. A. (2019). Dalla alfabetizzazione mediatica all’alfabetizzazione transmediale. DigitCult. Scientific Journal on Digital Cultures, 37-46. Doi: 10.4399/97888255263184.
  43. Serbati A., Maniero S., Bracale M., & Caretta S. (2021). Come costruire un syllabus learner-centred? Creazione e validazione di una rubrica di (auto)valutazione del syllabus. Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching - Open Access, 6(1). Doi: 10.3280/exioa1-2021oa12067.
  44. Serbati A., Picasso F., Doria B., & Grion V. (2022). Learning outcomes and constructive alignment in the Mega-Universities Syllabi: which “promises” to students?. Form@re - Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 22(2): 61-77. Doi: 10.36253/form-13022.
  45. Tino C. (2022). La costruzione del Syllabus per una didattica innovativa. In: M. De Rossi & M. Fedeli (Eds.). Costruire percorsi di faculty development (pp. 105-133). Pensa Multimedia.
  46. Viganò R. (2002). Pedagogia e sperimentazione. Metodi e strumenti per la ricerca educativa. Vita e Pensiero.
  47. Wambsganss T., Niklaus C., Cetto M., Söllner M., Handschuh S., & Leimeister J. M. (2020). AL: An adaptive learning support system for argumentation skills. In: CHI’ 20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14). Association for Computing Machinery. Doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376732.
  48. Yarosh J. H. (2021). The syllabus reconstructed: An analysis of traditional and visual syllabi for information retention and inclusiveness. Teaching Sociology, 49(2): 173-183. Doi: 10.1177/0092055X21996784.