Investigation of Middle School Students’ Argumentation Schemes in Different Argumentative Orientations

Abstract

This study investigated 35 middle school students’ argumentation schemes in two different argumentative orientations, namely, immersion orientation (i.e., learning of argument through immersion) and socio-scientific orientation (i.e., emphasizing the interaction between science and society) integrated into science instruction in the heat and matter and electricity units. The research design of this qualitative study is a single case and the study lasted six weeks. While students produced their first-hand data in immersion orientation, they used already available second-hand data (e.g., evidence cards) in socio-scientific orientation. Data were obtained from whole-class discussions, collected through classroom observations, and analyzed deductively. Findings showed students commonly used argument from position to know, analogy, and evidence to hypothesis in immersion orientation, whereas they used argument from sign, expert opinion, example, correlation to cause, and consequence mainly in socio-scientific orientation. These findings supported that the use of some argumentation schemes can depend on the type of argumentative orientation. A comparison of students’ argumentation schemes used in different units when immersion orientation was used also suggested that the use of argumentation schemes is independent of the topic. Findings were discussed in detail regarding argumentation schemes and specific suggestions were provided.