• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2010

In this paper, I explore Turner's argument against libertarianism. He claims that libertarians can't be compatible with naturalism, without abandoning the Consequence Argument. In order to support this claim, he proposes the Supervenience Argument. According to him, the Supervenience Argument can't be rejected without abandoning either the Consequence Argument or naturalism. But I show that libertarians don't have to accept his Supervenience Argument, even though they stick to the Consequence Argument, and that even though they accept his Supervenience Argument, they don't have to abandon the freedom of agent. For these reasons, I conclude that Turner's argument against libertarianism turns out a failure.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.359-387
• /
• 2015

As is well known, the consequence argument(shortly, CA) is intended as showing the incompatibility of free will and determinism. Recently, professor Choi Hoon tries to show there is a way in which Davidson's anomalous monism(shortly, AM) can be interpreted to counter CA. But I do not agree with his interpretation. So, in this paper, I will try to show why in the following way. In order to counter CA, it must be possible for AM to deny at least one of the premises of CA or to deny ${\beta}$ rule which guarantees the validity of CA or to show that free will is compatible with determinism in spite of the soundness of CA. In this paper, I will show that AM can do neither.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.895-910
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students' progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students' group norms related to participation were developed, and the students' epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students' group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others' arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.79-92
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to develop an inquiry-based argumentation task for use in science teachers' professional development by providing them with the substantial experience of argumentation. To do so, the study has developed an argumentation task by utilizing the experiment on the Charles' Law of gas and revised by applying to eight teachers three times. We have revised the questions by analyzing three issues that have been revealed throughout this process in ways that facilitated teachers' argumentation. The effects of revision have been confirmed by the improvements in teachers' argumentation pattern. Three issues have been identified in developing argumentation tasks for science teachers' professional development and they are as follows: determining the openness of the structure of a question, achieving cognitive conflict and convergence of opinions at the same time, and ways of utilizing various evidence. As the task has been revised in ways that enabled scientific approach to the inquiry topic and facilitated the convergence of various opinions, the participants' argumentation patterns have improved both quantitatively and qualitatively. Meanwhile, the inclusion of an actual experiment has not influence their argumentation, while the observation of experimental data has been used as the core evidence according to the character of the problem. Based on the study's result, we suggest practical implications for developing argumentation tasks for science teachers in more varying contexts.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to explore teachers' responsive moves that affect students' argumentation practices, and to propose responsive teaching strategies in argumentation-based science classroom. Two teachers, who have not implemented argumentation in their classes, and 57 students, participated in this study. We recorded and transcribed their classes and interviews for the analysis. According to grounded theory approach, we categorized the teachers' responsive moves as focused on either structural or dialogical aspects of argumentation, and qualitatively analyzed their responsive teaching practices in classes. We discovered that the teachers mostly responded to structural rather than dialogical aspects of argumentation, particularly during the students' small-group discussions. This was mainly due to their instructional goals, which focused on the structural aspect of argumentation, and the limited time available for supporting small-groups. Regarding the structural aspects, those responsive moves that explored the students' thinking or facilitated their reasoning helped them to share their thinking and justify their arguments further with recognition of learning goals in the argumentation activities. Regarding the dialogical aspects, which were seen mostly in whole-class discussions, the moves that underlined similarities and differences between arguments, facilitated the sharing of a small-group's arguments with the entire class, or asked a specific student to evaluate the arguments were notable. These moves supported clarification of various small-groups' arguments, which led to reconstruction of coherent argument through evaluation and rebuttal of these arguments, consequentially facilitating dialogical interactions. Based on these results, we proposed responsive teaching strategies in an argumentation-based science classroom.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.6
• /
• pp.1019-1030
• /
• 2015

This study examined the development of a teacher's teaching practice and identified argumentation-specific pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and the influence of the argumentation-specific PCK on teaching practice in an argumentation classroom. The teacher has a Ph.D degree in science education, a 19-year teaching career, and no experience in instructing in an argumentation classroom. The developed program consists of nine lessons regarding photosynthesis for 7th graders. The teacher participated in a collaborative reflection with researchers after each lesson once a week and five times in total, which lasted for thirty minutes. All of the lessons were video- and audio-recorded and the transcript of lessons and collaborative reflection, pre- and post-survey related to argumentation, and researchers' journals were analyzed. Analysis of the data showed that the teacher emphasized group interaction showing utterances of listening, evaluating arguments, counter-arguing/debating, and reflecting on argument process after the fourth lesson although the teacher focused on individual argumentation showing utterances of talking, knowing meaning of argument, and justifying with evidence in the first three lessons. Also, the argumentation-specific PCK, which was identified with the understanding of students, nature of argumentation and argumentation task strategy, also influenced the development of teaching practice. The teacher comprehended the students' challenges in argumentation, developed her understanding of the nature of argumentation from an individual plane to social plane, and demonstrated a deep understanding of the task strategy by voluntarily joining in modifying the argumentation tasks.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.604-624
• /
• 2012

This study aims to design a framework for analyzing group argumentation in terms of participants' interaction. Regarding the current group argumentation setting as argumentation on socio-scientific issues within participants who have had limited experience on group argumentation, the analytical framework was designed to explain (1) what was each participant's role on group argumentation, (2) how these roles were changed within each time of argumentation, and (3) how the patterns of interaction were changed through seven times of a series of argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Based on the literature review on analytical framework of argumentation in science education including the works on the structure of argumentation, the discourse formation through interaction, and the linguistic approach on participants' interaction, the current research framework was built. Showing the results of applying the designed framework on group argumentation as an example, strength of using the current designed framework was discussed.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.1037-1049
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore how the flow of discourse move and their reasoning process in dialogic argumentation during group modeling on excretion. Five groups of three to four students in the second grade of a middle school participated in the modeling practice of a Gifted Center. Analysis was conducted on argumentation during the modeling activity in which students should explain how the waste product (ammonia) leaves the body. It was found that there was a sequential argumentative process-tentative consensus, solving the uncertainty, and consensus. There were several discourse moves - 'claim' and 'counterclaim' in the stage of tentative consensus, 'query' and 'clarification of meaning' in the stage of solving the uncertainty, and 'change of claim' in the stage of consensus. Students participated in the dialogic argumentation by constructing argument collaboratively for reaching a consensus. Critical questioning in the stage of solving the uncertainty and reasoning in the stage of consensus were the impact factors of dialogic argumentation. By answering the critical questions, students changed their claims or suggested new claims by defending or rebutting previous claims. Students justified group claims with diverse argumentation scheme and scientific reasoning to reach a group consensus. These findings have implication for science educators who want to adopt dialogic argumentation in science classes.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.31 no.6
• /
• pp.625-636
• /
• 2010

Scientifically gifted students' argumentation characteristics in science instruction using the internet messenger was investigated. Participants in this study were five 9th grader in middle school in Seoul. They attended a program offered by the Science-Gifted Education Center, Seoul National University. Internet messenger (instant messenger) was used for instruction, and data were collected by saved messages. Toulmin's argument model was used as a tool for analyzing students' argumentation, and the argumentation patterns were categorized by sequence of argument operations. The results showed that in case of learner-centered instructions, there were lots of relatively higher-level argumentations appeared. On the contrary, teacher-centered instruction ended up with few or lower-level argumentation. Also there were four types of argumentation patterns emerged throughout the whole instructions. Findings suggest that the development of an instruction models and the selection of an appropriate topic be necessary for promoting the interaction between teacher and students as well as enhancing the students' ability of argument.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.63-75
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students' productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone's vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students' epistemological framing and the teacher's responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students' thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher's understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students' ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students' ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students' ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students' productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies to support students' productive framing in science classrooms.