Measuring student attitudes towards philosophical chairs versus traditional discussion to promote argumentation in the science classroom

Abstract

Middle school students were introduced to the concept of scientific argumentation through the use of a pre and post performance task. Students were required to answer a question based on data provided and be able to justify their reason with evidence. This study compared two different forms of discussion, philosophical chairs and traditional discussion, in order to identify what type of discussion was beneficial to students to communicate a written argument. This study investigated two research questions, first if the type of discussion affects students’ ability to write a logical argument and whether the use of philosophical chairs affect student attitudes compared to traditional discussion. Statistical findings show that there is no difference between the group when it comes to the format of discussion. Both types of discussions help students communicate a logical written argument. However, the type of discussion does affect students’ attitudes and willingness to participate.