habits in class in oral and written text commentary; the use of philological and critical commentaries; the training received

in the analysis and production of argumentative texts; teacher revision and self-revision of argumentative commentaries;

as well as the difficulties encountered in such discursive processes. The results obtained show the scarce use of text

commentaries, both oral and written, in higher education classrooms; as well as the lack of formative opportunities in

their academic life to develop their critical capacity through the interpretation and production of argumentative texts.

Therefore, the analysis of the perception of university students about such explored academic habits lets us conclude the

evidence of an important training deficit in the communicative practices of argumentative commentary and to proffer as

an improvement the proposal of collegiate didactic initiatives where the strategic use of theoretical-practical resources

related to argumentation and its discursive development in the commentary is promoted, since the defense and elaboration

of arguments is a basic competence and the promotion of the critical commentary of texts is a competence of such a

his work is linked to the research of the R+D+i

project “Epistemic innovation of an argumentative

commentary model of multimodal texts in the

(Acronym: IARCO. Ref. PGC2018-101457-B-I00) funded

Education Degree in English, French, and Listening and

Language mentions, regarding their previous knowledge

and their manifest pragmatics on the commentary of

argumentative texts, with the expectation that, as future

strategies for the linguistic promotion of argumentation at

The interpretative analysis corresponding to this study

approaches the educational knowledge of argumentation

from a constructivist perspective based on the dialogical

where Spanish as a mother language is taught runs through

subjective linguistic action where the text becomes

discourse through the work of the enunciation, which

makes sense to the meaning of the enunciated text in the

horizon of expectations of its recipients in a convincing and

persuasive way. Therefore, it becomes necessary to

postulate an integral model of communicative competence

where argumentation thrives in its oral and written

dimension, and the personal critical commentary of texts

works of major argumentative trends with a long trail of

followers: Toulmin’s The Uses of Argumentation and

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s Treatise on

educational field of linguistic communication competence,

however, has been irregular, as studies on argumentative

thinking are still sustained today in the strong philosophical

anchoring of pragma-dialectical research (Bermejo-Luque,

On the other hand, the research line in the didactics of oral

the competence-based approach that prevails in

international educational systems and even though there

are prototypical proposals on the argumentative sequence

as useful as Adam’s (1995), which has been incorporated

as a model by the Curricular Plan of the Cervantes Institute.

However, there is still little scientific research on the

subject in early childhood education, which means that the

usual strategies of a traditional instructional model in the

processes of comprehension and oral and written

expression, which promotes the transmission of knowledge

their communicative competence in both creative and

critical reflective practices (Caro & González, 2018). It

also understands that for this aim of educational quality to

become a daily reality in the classrooms of the pre-

university stages, it is important to work previously in

university students pursuing a degree in education with the

aim of learning to build knowledge that is strategic for this

age is text commentary, due to the interpretative reading

and critical writing that it exercises with intertextual

strategies inspired by Bakhtin and with an interdisciplinary

epistemic vocation (Caro and González, 2015), as studies

on discursive competence have renewed the

in its formation contributions from textual linguistics,

communication, critical discourse analysis, and informal

argumentation theorized by neo-rhetoric. However, as

traditional models of worship authority still prevail in

commentary didactics (Rodríguez-Martínez, 2016) and

regard (Kruse, 2013; Villalón & Mateos, 2009). The key

issue is to promote teacher training strategies in this regard,

being aware that, in order to deconstruct such ingrained

beliefs, the change in mentality has to be gradual and

situated (Benarroch & Briceño, 2014).

Specifically, in relation to teaching beliefs about the

education, today it is still an unfinished challenge to

introduce its epistemic discursive practice in university

classrooms due to the resistance caused by the primacy

among teachers and students of the implicit theory of

programmes about students’ competent learning if

classroom activities contradict them because they do not

give students the opportunity to participate in their own

learning process, where informal argumentative logic must

have a place and give rise to the active construction of

critical knowledge (Vicente-Yagüe et al., 2019).

Therefore, the contribution to this paradigm shift begins

with the collegial shaping of its educational principles and

the application of consistent didactic strategies. The

competency-based organisation of syllabuses and

university teaching guides in accordance with the Generic

Competences set out in section 3. 2 of Annex I of Royal

Decree 1393/2007 of 29 October, which regulates official

students know how to apply their knowledge to their work

or vocation in a professional manner and possess the

competences that are usually demonstrated through the

elaboration and defence of arguments and the resolution of

specifically, the elaboration and defence of arguments has

previous years’ subjects in this area within the curriculum

of the Degree in Primary Education at the University of

analysis and production of commentaries.

interaction in argumentative texts.

and composed of 11 items that formulates closed Likert

scale type questions with four response value options (1

Coefficient: 0.777518334). The questionnaire was

for presentation in this study.

argumentative text commentary according to the

classification stipulated by Caro et al. (2021).

worked on it (21.30%, 49 people) and those who have

4 allow us to analyse the exploratory results on the textual

typology most used in the commentary.

said they had made few (84) and 20.90%, quite a lot (64).

6 show information on the exploration of the training

received in the analysis and production of comments.

The significant training deficit of students in this

interpretative faculty stands out: 24.60% none (55) and

42.40% scarce (97). However, there is also a sector which

has received it to a greater or lesser extent: 21% (48) quite

a lot, and 12.60% (29) a lot.

and 38.40% (88) had received little, while 27.50% (63) and

10.90% (25) had received quite a lot and a great deal,

respectively.

with item 7, relating to opportunities to share

interpretations and hypotheses about argumentative texts in

class.

(48) admit not having had the opportunity to share their

interpretations and hypotheses, and 42.30% (97) admit

having had few opportunities to do so. On the other hand,

while 30.10% (69) confirm that they have had many

opportunities to do so, only 6.60% (15) say they have had

many.

with items 8 and 9, which focus on exploring the

predominance of external evaluative modalities and own

argumentative comments.

the students' own argumentative comments was carried out

self-revision and 34.10% (78) having carried it out to a

small extent. The remaining 27.10% (62) said that they had

carried out self-revision on quite a few occasions.

and 11, this objective focuses on exploring students' self-

knowledge in argumentative communication, paying

attention to their difficulties in analysing and producing

argumentative texts.

students encounter few difficulties: 48.50% (111) report

difficulty and 7.40% (17) a lot of difficulty.

specific objective 1, the predominance of written

commentary can be seen in the different stages, including

higher education. This is consistent with the traditional

pedagogical model, whose authoritarianism gives

converting his or her commentary into a reconstructive

analysis of other people’s proposals without making his or

her own contributions. For this reason, academic

commentaries are often limited to the analysis of the

content of topics and subtopics of the text.

The minority fact of oral text commentary implied wasting

commentators and the competent development of their

informal argumentative communication, the guarantee of

which - meaningful exercise and personal critical sense -

the free exercise of critical discourse in colloquial dialogue,

entrench a presumed conservative scholastic neutrality in

access to knowledge.

This habit reveals that, even though it has a competency

role in the university curriculum for the initial training of

primary education students, as shown in the syllabus of the

University of Murcia, oral commentary continues to be an

educational field that is little explored in its classrooms.

The results are in line with the conclusions drawn from the

study by Villalón & Mateos (2009), who state that the