Abstract

Amid rising polarization, misinformation and disinformation, exclusionary discourse, and global conflict, developing individuals' reasoning skills for contemporary controversial issues constitutes a pressing educational priority, yet evidence on effective approaches remains limited. This study addresses this gap by examining whether a dialogic intervention on a “neutral” topic—based on argumentation and reflection—can develop reasoning skills that transfer to a controversial sociopolitical issue of personal relevance. One hundred twelve sixth graders participated in nine 40-min sessions focused on either US immigration or soda drink consumption to examine near and far transfer. Argumentation skills were assessed through individual essays before and after the intervention on both the intervention and transfer topics. Results showed that both conditions demonstrated gains in argumentation skills, particularly in using evidence, constructing counterarguments, and engaging in two-sided reasoning on both topics. Of particular interest is the far transfer observed from a neutral science topic to a topical, emotionally and belief-laden sociopolitical issue with minimal content overlap. We suggest this achievement is attributable to students' developing meta-level appreciation of the role of evidence and multiperspectivity in reasoning. Implications for research on developing argumentation skills and the teaching of controversial contemporary topics are discussed.