• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.79-88
• /
• 2006

study was to explore the patterns and the characteristics of students' interactive argumentation in the middle school science classes. The data were collected by observing and audiotaping the small-group discussions and the transcribed data were analyzed through the lens of Toulmin's argument frame. As the results, the three argumentation patterns, which could be combined different ideas with or without their warrants, were presented. In the first pattern, the argumentation including the claim and its warrant without any different ideas, the students argumentation did not have any conflict with each other in the discussions. In the second, the argumentation of different ideas without their warrants, the different ideas did not affect the claim. In the last, the argumentation of different ideas with their warrants, the students elaborated the claim through collaborative argumentation in search for the warrant. To understand and improve student discussions in the science classrooms, conclusion and implications were discussed based on the results.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.701-725
• /
• 2017

Students need to have opportunities to share their ideas with peers by taking part in the conversation voluntarily that is, by persuading others and reflecting the consequences. Recognizing the importance of this point, this study intended to examine students' argumentation occurring in the process of performing tasks in the math classroom. Also, it tried to explore the types of the argument that students used in the classroom and the reason why they employed them with a focus on 'rebuttal', which is one of the six elements of the argument scheme such as claim, data, warrent, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttal. The analysis of argumentation is based on the five argumentation schemes suggested by Verheij(2005). The experimental class was conducted twice a week with four participants who are third grade middle school students. In the argumentation class students were promoted to address two different kinds of geometrical tasks. After the second session of class, the researcher conducted the semi-structured interview. Accordingly, this study contributes to the existing research by making students to have concrete and active argumentation while obtaining the sound understanding of the argumentation.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.106-117
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to explore students' argumentation in perspectives of epistemology and psychology and to find out how teacher can promote students' abilities of developing argumentation. The 60 hours of lessons from the interaction between one science teacher (Mr. Physics, who had 35 years of teaching experience) and his 26 students were observed, transcribed, and analyzed using two different analyzing tools; one is from the perspective of epistemology and the other from the perspective of psychology, which can portray how argumentation is constructed. Mr. Physics created the environment where students could promote the quality of scientific argumentation through explicit teaching strategy, Claim-Evidence Approach. The low level of argumentation was portrayed through examples from students' prior knowledge or experience in the form of an Appeal to the instance operation and the Elaboration reasoning skill. Students' own claims were developed through application of knowledge in a different context in the form of an Induction operation and Generativity reasoning skill. Higher level of argumentation was portrayed through Consistency operation with other knowledge or experience and Explanation reasoning skills based on students' ideas with more active teacher's inputs. The teacher in this study played a role as a helper for students to enact identities as competent "sense makers," as an elaborator rather than evaluator to extend students' ideas, and as a mentor to foster and monitor the students' development of ideas of a higher quality. It is critical for teachers to understand the nature of argumentation, which in turn is connected to their explicit teaching strategy with the aim of providing opportunities where students can understand the science enterprise.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.5
• /
• pp.757-768
• /
• 2016

This study developed an SSI (Socio-Scientific Issue) discussion program that applies a creative technique called six thinking hats, and then investigated the differences in argumentation patterns and effects on the decision-making abilities of each character feature of students between SNS debate and existing face to face debate. There were three SSI themes - Designer Babies, embryonic stem cell study, and legitimacy of abortion. Students were divided into two groups, the debate group using SNS and face to face debate group. The character patterns of students were divided to 'extraversion,' 'agreeableness,' and 'conscientiousness' through test sheets for character features for each student. Both groups were educated for creative discussion methods using six thinking hats and then, the class progressed. As a result of analyzing argumentation patterns used in SNS debate and face to face debate, the most used argumentation pattern was the "cause pattern." But comparing to face to face debate, other patterns (mark, inference, authority, motive) were also used in SNS debate. The study analyzed three factors of decision-making ability for each character feature of students such as complexity, perspectives, and inquiry. As a result, for 'complexity' factor, there was a significant difference between SNS debate group and face to face debate group only in the student group of Agreeableness. For 'perspectives' factor, there were significant differences between SNS debate group and face to face debate group in all three characters. Finally, for inquiry, there were no significant differences between SNS debate group and face to face debate group in all three characters. Accordingly it would be necessary to apply SNS debate using the six thinking hats in SSI education to enhance perspectives.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.12-26
• /
• 2018

This study examined the effects of SSI argumentation program on the preservice biology teachers' decision-making types and communication ability. The SSI argumentation program was developed based on 'Social Decision-Making & Problem-Solving strategy' and Toulmin's argumentation pattern. The preservice teachers had opportunities of SSI argumentation through small group discussions. They were asked to identify the issues regarding SSI, think of solutions, and make a decision along with claims, warrants, data, and rebuttals. The preservice biology teachers experienced four SSI topics of abortion, euthanasia, gene manipulation, artificial intelligence. The results indicated that the preservice biology teachers significantly improved the communication ability after the intervention, but they did not change their types of decision-making. In addition, after the intervention, the Pearson correlation results indicated that 'the logical type' of decision-making significantly relates to the communication ability(p<.01). The preservice biology teachers mentioned that they improved their ability of considering warrants, data, background information, context, and rebuttals. Further, the preserivce biology teachers mentioned that they became take an interest in socioscientific issues and improved their ability of accepting criticism from others as well as caring about others when they argue each other. This study implicated that the SSI argumentation program has effects on improving personality education in school science.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.161-172
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to characterize students' conceptions on causes of the phases of the moon. For this purpose, students were given a worksheet for argumentative writing activity where in they need to choose the right answer between five statements and provide reasonable evidences about causes of the phases of the moon. Written arguments collected were used as analysis data and TAP(Toulmin's argument pattern) including conceptual analysis of TAP elements were utilized to figure out logical structures and subordinate conceptions. The result showed that students had various alternative concepts about causes of the phases of the moon and associated with celestial. Also 70.5% of subjects had incomplete argument structures, and error types of concepts had difference according to types of alternative concepts as well as TAP. These results mean that importance of checking students' preconceptions, need of scientific argumentation, and appropriate instructional strategies considering alternative conception types and fallacy types that students had.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.717-728
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the argumentation of gifted students in the perspective of rebuttal. Rebuttal is a significant indicator of argumentation quality; it is also an essential component for science learning through interaction. However, most previous research point out insufficient use of rebuttal in student's argumentation. The argumentation of 37 8th grade students, enrolled in institutes for the scientifically gifted in Seoul, are observed and recorded for 4 hours. The argumentation topic is about how to measure the brightness of the sun. Based on Verheij's (2005) five types of rebuttal patterns, the features of rebuttal are analyzed. It is found that students' argumentation include all of the five rebuttal types: rebuttal of the data, the claim, the warrant, warrant's applicability, and connection between data and claim. It is also found that these five types can be categorized in two groups. The first group consists of first three types and is characterized by the disagreement with the validity of what has been said. The second group consists of the last two types and is characterized by the suggestion or additional information for missing links in argumentation.

• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.20 no.3 s.27
• /
• pp.373-389
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study is to compare the way of proving using combinational proof with the way of proving presented in the existing math textbook in the proof of combinational equation and to classify the problem-solving into some categories using combinational proof in combinational equation. Corresponding with these, this study suggests the application of combinational equation using combinational proof and the fundamental material to develop material for advanced study.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.129
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2014

The slippery slope argument means that if we accept a type of action A, we are committed to accepting B, C and eventually N. Then, N is situation which we must not accept morally. It works causal mechnism that B because A is raised, C because B is raised. But in the logic textbooks and treatises, the slippery slope argument is classified as fallacy. The reason is that the argument is not a causal argument. Actually, it is a probable. Also it is argued that the argument is wrong because it fears about the future extremely. But We can not say all slippery slope argument is fallacy even though a slippery slope argument is sometimes fallacy. I think it is persuasive argument in a significant place. Therefore I argue that the argument is not simple logic as a form of thinking, but practical reasoning applied the context of dialogue. So in order to find it to be practical reasoning we demand the new understanding to fallacy theory. In traditionally, fallacy is defined to wrong reasoning logically, but according to Walton, fallacy means a verbal tactic or deceptive trick that can be used to cause someone to fall down in argument. That is to say, whether or not the argument is successful depends on how it uses as argument tactic in a given context of dialogue. Therefore I argue that whether or not the argument is successful, because of it is practical problem used in a context of dialogue, is to be approached to pragma and dialectical method, not semantic.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.238-252
• /
• 2020

In this study, we analyzed the types of rebuttals in the argument structure of learning contents in lesson plans constructed by Earth science preservice teachers, and then we explored examples of how they responded to resolving the rebuttal. As a result of analyzing preservice teachers' assignments, discussions, and interviews collected during a total of 20 hours of classes and group discussions for 5 weeks, all 5 types of rebuttals suggested by Verheij (2005) were identified. Through the data analysis, a total of 18 rebuttal cases derived, and these cases were classified into 3 types according to how preservice teachers solve the rebuttals in class. The conclusions and implications based on the results are as follows: First, this study provided empirical data that the thinking process of validating core elements of argumentation and processes of argumentation is actively taking place in preservice teachers' lesson planning using the argument structure, and expanded the scope of application of argumentation in science education research. Second, the argument structure of learning contents should be used to help teachers to come up with strategies to induce students' curiosity and devotion to learn science contents. Third, preservice teachers should have the opportunity to think about the nature of science, including the variability and uncertainty of scientific knowledge when they discover rebuttals and develop solutions to them. Based on these conclusions, implications and suggestions for science education and further research were suggested.