Here's a presentation I did for class on a paper that studies the relationship between awareness of argumentation norms and ability to find flaws in informal arguments. They operationally define their argumentation fallacies to include ad hominem (attack on the person arguing), ad populem (appeal to the masses), and ad ignorantum (appeal to ignorance).
The gist of the article is that students (grades 8-12 in Israel) are OK at recognizing bad arguments, but are worse at explaining why they are bad arguments. Further, even though they are aware of argumentation norms (such as attacking the person or appealing to the masses), they don't necessarily
There are major methodological flaws in this study, including the nature and ordering of the argumentation tasks and the statistical analyses (Mann-Whitney U), so unfortunately the results aren't very strong. However, I think that the literature review does a pretty good job of summarizing some of the argumentation research that has been done in science education research.