Key Findings on 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 have taken place?

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

1. In middle school: a progression across several standards for 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 refutations and nuances). The three norms specific to arguing about QSS (openness, complexity, and uncertainties) are also more frequently employed toward the end of a contribution, although uncertainties remain largely unaddressed. In contrast, only^6th-grade students showed improvement in refutation, while only^4th-grade students made progress in questioning and in taking into account the openness of QSS.

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

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

The results show positive, albeit limited, changes in students’ adoption of general and specific standards for argumentation 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 often include in their arguments the conditions under which their ideas are valid.

B. Profiles of Students Engaged in Debate

1. Three Student Profiles in Middle School and Their Development

At the middle school level (6th and 8th grades), we were able to identify three student profiles in the debates. A first profile emerges:

• 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 presenting arguments, two profiles stand out:

• The profile of “nuance-seekers and questioners ”: these are students who speak up often, qualify their statements more frequently, and question 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 “developers-justifiers ”: These students seek to delve deeper into topics, explain their ideas, and explore the complexity of the QSS; as the 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 as the debates progressed. 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 does this translate into the argumentation in individual writings?

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 transfer to individual written argumentation. In fact, all^6th- and^8th-grade students—whether or not 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, with regard to justification, a more marked improvement is observed among^6th-grade students than among^{4th-grade students}. Similarly, regarding consideration for others, a significant improvement is observed among 6th-grade students as well as among those in^6th and^{4th 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 writings, but this trend is not clear enough to be considered significant, suggesting only a very partial transfer of the internalization of the justification norm. The number of QSS dimensions considered does not increase in the individual writings. Uncertainties and actors are given little consideration in individual writing assignments, reflecting the results observed in the debates.