Middle school science students’ dialogic argumentation

Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning are used to analyze students’ small group discourse during the evaluation of a science investigation project. Seventeen triads of middle school students participated in a structured 45-60 minute long interview. The broad set argumentation schemes employed by students, such as argument from sign and argument from consequences, suggests that the authentic argumentative practices of students reflect a blending of analytical, dialectical and rhetorical devices. The data suggest that a developmental corridor for argumentation would begin with the dialectical structures/patterns and build toward the analytical structures/patterns. Students in the treatment groups employed more argumentation schemes for requesting/critiquing evidence and for drawing inferences from claims. Objective/Purpose. Quality teaching involves providing quality feedback to learners. An area of feedback that is not well understood is assisting novice science learners with arguing from evidence to explanation, or more generally, from premises to conclusions. Given that the language of science involves both the evaluation and justification of knowledge claims, argumentation strategies are recognized as (1) an important tool for doing and talking science and (2) as a generic strategy for developing rational thinking and promoting democratic discourse. There are two purposes for the presentation. One is to introduce a new methodological approach – argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning teachers and researchers can employ to understand the argumentation strategies employed by learners. Two is to report the results of an experimental study that employed the new methodological approach to analyze small group (n=3) discourse. Theoretical Framework. Argumentation has three generally recognized forms: analytical, dialectical, and rhetorical (van Eemeren et al, 1996). Analytical arguments are grounded in the theory of logic and include, as examples, material implications, syllogisms and fallacies. Essentially in the analytical approach an argument proceeds inductively or deductively from a set of premises to a conclusion. Dialectical arguments are those that occur during discussion or debate and involve reasoning with premises that are not evidently true. Dialectical arguments are a part of the informal logic domain. Rhetorical arguments are oratorical in nature and are represented by the discursive techniques employed to persuade an audience. In contrast to the other two forms of argument where the evidence is paramount, rhetorical arguments stress knowledge of audience. Designing learning environments to facilitate and promote argumentation is a complex problem given that the discourse of science involves three different forms of argumentation. The central role of argumentation in doing science is supported by both psychologists (Kuhn, 1993) and philosophers of science (Siegel, 1995) as well as science education researchers studying the discourse patterns of reasoning in science contexts (Driver, Newton & Osborne, in press; Kelly, Chen, & Crawford, 1998; Lemke, 1990). Argumentation is seen as a reasoning strategy and thus also comes under the general reasoning domains of informal logic and critical thinking as well. Driver and Newton assert that we have much to learn about the dynamics of argumentation in science classrooms. To date, most investigations of student discourse in science have relied on the application of analytical forms of arguments (Kuhn, 1993) or Toulmin’s model for practical arguments (Eichinger, Anderson, Palincsar & David, 1991; Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993; Kelley, Chen, & Crawford, 1998). In these studies,