This study looks at how secondary school learners can improve their argumentative skills by analyzing information from different subjects. In today’s education, argumentation is seen as an important skill needed for academic success, involvement, and critical thinking. However, research and classroom experiences show that many learners have difficulty creating evidence-based arguments, especially when dealing with complex texts that require identifying main ideas, evaluating evidence, and using logical reasoning. This study tackles this issue through an interdisciplinary Lesson Study carried out by teachers of English, Kazakh language, and World History in a Grade 10 (learners aged 15 to 16) in Kazakhstan.

The main research question is: How can structured analytical tools help secondary school learners build evidence-based arguments through text analysis in various subjects? The major aim of the research was to see if using structured tables as analytical helpers could improve learners’ ability to extract key information from texts, organize ideas logically, and create clear, well-supported arguments. Another goal was to look into how these tools work for learners with different academic skills and how support can gradually be lessened to encourage independent thinking.

The study is based on sociocultural and cognitive theories. From a sociocultural viewpoint, it uses Vygotsky’s idea of the Zone of Proximal Development, which focuses on how scaffolding and guided support assist learners in tackling complex tasks they can't yet do on their own. Structured tables served as tools to help learners shift from supported to independent argument creation. From a cognitive standpoint, the study incorporates cognitive load theory, which stresses the need to minimize unnecessary cognitive load when students handle complex tasks like text analysis and argumentation. By breaking down the argumentative process into manageable parts (key ideas, evidence, counterarguments, conclusions), the structured tables helped learners organize information better and concentrate their cognitive efforts on reasoning instead of managing the task.

The research also references literature on higher-order thinking skills and argumentation. According to revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, constructing an argument requires learners to progress from understanding to analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. Previous studies on graphic organizers and structured analytical tools suggest that visual and organizational supports can help this process, especially for learners who find abstract reasoning or written expression challenging. Methodologically, the study used a qualitative Lesson Study design that included three research lessons. Data was gathered through classroom observations, pre-study learner surveys, semi-structured student interviews, analysis of learner work, and focused case studies of three students with different achievement levels. The iterative nature of Lesson Study allowed for ongoing adjustments of teaching strategies based on observed learner needs.

The findings show that structured analytical tables led to noticeable improvement in students’ argumentative skills across subjects. Most learners were better able to identify key ideas, choose relevant evidence, and build more coherent arguments. Notably, this approach reduced the number of learners who needed extra help, while allowing high-achieving learners to become more independent as support was gradually removed. The European and international significance of this study lies in its focus on practical teaching strategies that promote argumentation as a skill used across subjects. In various educational contexts facing issues like information overload, media literacy, and critical thinking, structured support combined with collaborative teacher inquiry provides an effective and flexible solution. The study adds to international conversations on curriculum development, interdisciplinary teaching, and teacher learning, showing how Lesson Study can systematically enhance learners’ argumentative skills across different subjects.

This study employed a qualitative research design grounded in the Lesson Study methodology, which was selected for its emphasis on collaborative inquiry and close examination of classroom practice. The Study enabled the research team to observe how learners’ argumentative skills developed over time and to refine teaching strategies in response to learners’ needs. The research was conducted in a Grade 10 at NIS Taldykorgan and involved twelve learners with varying levels of academic achievement. Teachers of English, Kazakh language, and World History worked collaboratively throughout the study, allowing argumentation to be explored as a shared, cross-curricular competence rather than a skill limited to one subject area. The Lesson Study cycle consisted of three research lessons designed to progressively support learners in analysing texts and constructing evidence-based arguments. A central instructional tool was the use of structured analytical tables. These tables acted as scaffolds, guiding learners to identify key ideas, select relevant evidence, consider alternative viewpoints, and formulate conclusions. As the lessons progressed, teacher support was gradually reduced to encourage greater learner independence in organising ideas and constructing arguments. Data collection relied on qualitative sources to capture learners’ experiences and development in depth. Prior to the intervention, a learner survey was used to identify perceived difficulties in working with texts, such as extracting key information, organising ideas, and supporting claims with evidence. During each research lesson, classroom observations focused on learner engagement, use of the structured tables, and changes in argumentative reasoning. To explore how the approach supported learners with different needs, three learners were selected as case studies, representing high-, average-, and lower-achieving profiles. Learner work samples, including completed tables and written argumentative statements, were analysed to identify changes in structure, coherence, and use of evidence. In addition, semi-structured learner interviews were conducted after each research lesson to capture learners’ reflections on the process, perceived challenges, and growing confidence in argumentation. Data analysis followed an inductive, thematic approach. Observation notes, interview data, and learner work were examined to identify patterns in how learners organised information, used evidence, and moved toward more independent argument construction across the lesson sequence. Ethical considerations were carefully addressed. All learner data were anonymised, participation in interviews was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained for the use of learner quotations. Throughout the study, care was taken to ensure that learners experienced the process as supportive and developmental rather than evaluative.

The findings of this study indicate that structured analytical tools can play a significant role in supporting the development of learners’ argumentative abilities across subject areas. The use of structured tables enabled learners to move beyond surface-level text comprehension toward more systematic analysis and evidence-based reasoning. Most learners demonstrated improved ability to identify key ideas, organise information logically, and support claims with relevant evidence. A key outcome of the study was the positive impact of structured scaffolding on learners with differing levels of academic achievement. Learners who previously struggled with text analysis benefited from the clear framework provided by the tables, which reduced cognitive overload and increased confidence in engaging with complex tasks. At the same time, higher-achieving learners were able to progress toward greater independence as scaffolding was gradually removed, allowing them to deepen their analytical reasoning and construct more sophisticated arguments. The Lesson Study approach also produced valuable outcomes for teaching practice. Collaborative planning, observation, and reflection enabled teachers to refine instructional strategies and respond more effectively to learners’ needs. The interdisciplinary nature of the study demonstrated that argumentation can be taught as a shared, transferable competence rather than as a skill confined to individual subjects. In terms of expected outcomes beyond the immediate research context, the findings suggest that structured analytical tools can be adapted and applied in diverse educational settings where learners face challenges related to information overload, critical thinking, and evidence-based writing. The approach offers a practical strategy for integrating argumentation into curricula across languages and humanities subjects. Overall, the study contributes to international discussions on how structured scaffolding and collaborative teacher inquiry can support equitable development of argumentative competence. It highlights the potential of combining simple pedagogical tools with reflective teaching practices to foster learners’ confidence, independence, and critical engagement with texts.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman. Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher-order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_1 Jones, M. L., & Brown, K. (2019). Structured argumentation in secondary education. Journal of Educational Practice, 45(3), 125–134. Smith, J. A. (2020). Developing critical thinking in education. London: Learning Press.