Key insights into students' learning in the area of argumentation

The guidelines presented on this page are available as a PDF file: here.

A. Synchronous written discussions: What changes are taking place?

We examined the effects of a teaching sequence that combined four computer-mediated classroom debates with four reflective activities (in middle and high school). During the reflective activities, students worked on the standards for argumentation on socio-scientific issues (SSI) (see the Guidelines on the Standards for Argumentation on Socio-Scientific Issues), drawing on the arguments they had formulated during the debates.

1. In middle school: a progression across several standards of argumentation

In their first debate, students often tended to express simple agreement or disagreement (in a quarter of their contributions). As the debates progressed, the results showed positive developments regarding the norms of justification and consideration of others’ arguments (with more rebuttals and nuanced responses). The three standards specific to arguing about QSS (openness, complexity, and uncertainties) are also more frequently employed by the end of the discussion, although uncertainties remain rarely addressed. In contrast, only^6th-grade students showed improvement in refutation, while only^8th-grade students made progress in questioning and taking into account the openness of QSS.

2. In high school: high-quality argumentation from the very first debate

Our study reveals that students, starting with their very first debate, produce rich, high-quality arguments on social science questions. Each student makes numerous contributions, employing a variety of argumentative strategies and providing a high level of justification. Students address all relevant aspects of QSS, indicating that they make extensive use of generic argumentation norms, particularly the norms of justification and consideration of others. However, the norm of questioning is used less frequently, and QSS-specific norms, such as accounting for uncertainties and stakeholders, are rarely present.

The results show positive, albeit limited, changes in students’ adoption of general and specific argumentation standards regarding QSS. In the final debate, students tended to provide more justifications, ask more questions, take better account of the various aspects of QSS, and more frequently include in their arguments the conditions under which their ideas are valid.

B. Profiles of Students in Debate Situations

1. Three student profiles in middle school and how they have evolved

At the middle school level (6th and 8th grades), we identified three student profiles in the debates. The first profile that emerges is:

• The profile of " novice debaters ": they usually limit themselves to stating whether they agree or disagree, without elaborating further on their point of view; the results show that these students improve across all argumentation standards as the debates progress.

Among the students who are better at arguing, two profiles stand out:

• The profile of “nuance-seekers and questioners ”: these are students who speak up often, qualify their statements more frequently, and challenge the ideas put forward during the debate more often; as the debates progress, these students provide more justification for their statements and take greater account of the complexity of the QSS.
• The profile of “justifying developers ”: these students seek to delve deeper into topics, explain their ideas, and explore the complexity of social sciences; as discussions progress, they refine and further question the ideas being debated.

2. Three high school profiles and their development

After observing four consecutive debates at the high school level (11th and 12th grades), three student profiles were identified based on their initial level of justification: low, medium, and high. Students who initially provided fewer justifications improved in this regard over the course of the debates. In contrast, students with a high initial level tended to question the ideas expressed during the debates more frequently, while maintaining their rate of justifications.

C. How is this reflected in the arguments presented in the individual papers?

To what extent are the argumentative skills developed in a debate setting transferable to individual argumentative writing, particularly in written form?

This question allows us to expand on the discussion we have begun regarding the effects of debates on the quality of argumentation, by examining the impact of repeated participation in debates on individual argumentative skills.

1. In middle school: limited but significant progress in certain areas

The argumentative skills developed in debate settings do not immediately translate to individual written argumentation. In fact, all^6th- and^8th-grade students, regardless of whether they participated in debates, show a slight improvement in the quality of their argumentation for most of the assessed standards, although this improvement is generally not significant. However, regarding justification, a more marked improvement is observed among^6th-grade students than among^{8th-grade students}. Similarly, regarding consideration of others, a significant improvement is observed among 6th-grade students as well as among those in^6th and^{8th grades} attending schools within the Priority Education Network (REP).

2. In high school: a partial transfer of argumentative skills from debate to individual writing

The students who participated in the debates tend to provide more justifications in their individual writing, but this trend is not clear enough to be considered significant, suggesting only a very limited transfer of the internalization of the justification norm. The number of QSS dimensions considered does not increase in the individual writing. Uncertainties and actors are given little consideration in individual writings, reflecting the results observed in the debates.