Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues

In this study, we aimed to develop a framework for analyzing the argumentation practice of high school students and high school graduates. We developed the framework in a specific context - how energy consumption activities such as changing diet, converting forests into farmlands, and choosing transportation modes affect the carbon cycle. The framework concerns two dimensions of argumentation. The first dimension is content-based arguments; it focuses on incorporating content knowledge (i.e., matter, energy, and carbon-transforming processes) into logical arguments. The second dimension is argumentative discourse; it focuses on using strategic discourse moves to exchange views and resolve the difference of opinion. Engagement in scientific argumentation requires abilities in both dimensions. To develop the first dimension, we conducted a clinical interview study with 22 high school students and 8 high school graduates (i.e., beginning college students). To develop the second dimension, we conducted a conversation study with 50 high school students. We used the framework to measure student performance in argumentation interviews and argumentative conversations. The results suggest two challenges for high school students: (i) developing arguments that infer a causal connection and incorporating a scientific mechanism, and (ii) using strategic discourse moves to interpret, refute, and substantiate other arguers' viewpoints in conversations. We also provide suggestions on using this framework as an instructional and research tool.