• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.323-345
• /
• 2015

This study examined the types of abduction appeared in the exploration activities of 'law of large numbers' in order to figure out relation between statistical reasoning and abduction. When the classroom discourse of students was analyzed by Peirce's abduction, Eco's abduction type and Toulmin's argument pattern, students used overcoded abduction the most in the discourse of abduction. However, there composed a low percent of undercoded abduction leading to various thinking, and creative abduction used to make new principles or theories. By the CAS calculators used in the process of reasoning, students were provided with empirical context to understand the concept of abstract probability, through which they actively participated in the argumentation centered on the reasoning. As a result, it was found that not only to understand the abduction, but to build statistical context with tools in the learning of statistical reasoning is important.

• School Mathematics
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.423-446
• /
• 2015

This study aims to look into the characteristics of argumentation in the task context of 'Monty Hall problem' at a high school probability class. As a result of an analysis of classroom discourses on the argumentation between teachers and second-year students in one upper level class in high school using Toulmin's argument pattern, it was found that it would be important to create a task context and a safe classroom culture in which the students could ask questions and refute them in order to make it an argument-centered discourse community. In addition, through the argumentation of solving complex problems together, the students could be further engaged in the class, and the actual empirical context enriched the understanding of concepts. However, reasoning in argumentation was mostly not a statistical one, but a mathematical one centered around probability problem-solving. Through these results of the study, it was noted that the teachers should help the students actively participate in argumentation through the task context and question, and an understanding of a statistical reasoning of interpreting the context would be necessary in order to induce their thinking and reasoning about probability and statistics.

• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.803-829
• /
• 2022

With the advances in technology and the trend towards increased computer-based experiential learning in education settings, business games are being increasingly used by business educators. This article utilizes Toulmin's Sensemaking Framework to investigate the sensemaking process of business professionals to reveal how they consciously reason about the value of business games for learning complex business concepts and principles. Using the analysis of responses from 43 business professionals, our study identifies key areas where business professionals find value in business games and the limitations of using business games. First, business games are found to be an effective tool when teaching practical business skill sets to business professionals. Second, business games enhance the overall learning process in professional business training. Third, despite the advantages, some pitfalls in applying business games to practice are found. We also found sub-themes, claims, and argument patterns of how business professionals evaluate the value of business games through a grounded theory qualitative analysis method. Analysis results show several ground-warrant patterns exist in the arguments on values of business games including general principle - causal reasoning, personal experience - generalization, and personal projection - generalization. With these findings, we believe this paper contributes to the theory and practice of business game design, development, and the game playing and learning process.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.709-721
• /
• 2004

This study explored the relationship between argumentation and the conceptual change model in a science teacher's explanations. Ten audiotape recordings (about 9 hours) collected in a high school physics classroom were all transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed using the components of Toulmin's argument framework and two constructs of the conceptual change model: the status of a conception, and the conceptual ecology. This analysis reveals that there are dynamic relationships among Toulmin's argument components, the status of a conception, and the conceptual ecology. The episode extracted from the transcripts shows the science teacher's explanations in the flow of classroom discourse, as directed and guided by her, presenting the intelligibility or plausibility of a conception by using warrants or backings such as examples or anomalies, two components of conceptual ecology.

• School Mathematics
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.85-103
• /
• 2016

This study was to find characteristics of argumentation derived from a discourse in a math-gifted 5 grade class, which was held for finding a Pick's formula using Geoboard function of TI-73 calculator. For the analysis, a video record of the class, transcript of its voice record, and activity paper were used as data and Toulmin's argument schemes were applied as analysis standard. As a result of the study, we found that the graphing calculator helped the students to create an experimental environment that graphing a grid-polygon and figuring out its area. Furthermore, it also provided a basic demonstration through 'data->claim' composition and reasoning activities which consisted of guarantee, warrant, backing, qualifier and refutal for justifying. The basic argumentation during the process of deriving the Pick's theorem by the numbers of boundary points and inner points was developed into a 'collective argumentation' while a teacher took a role of a conductor of the argumentation and an authorizer on the knowledge at the same time.

• 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 The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.840-862
• /
• 2013

This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin's argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin's argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants' collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMEs and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the flow of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.405-414
• /
• 2020

In this study, we analyzed the development of high school students' argumentation through their writings on socio-scientific Issues (SSI) related to the Climate Change Unit in the Earth Science I curriculum. Pre- and post-writing assignments on the two main causes of global warming were analyzed and compared. In addition, an in-depth interview of the focus group was conducted with 7 students who showed a distinct change in the level of argumentation. According to the results, 16 of 52 students remained at the same argumentation level in pre- and post-writing assignments, and students remaining at Level 2 among five levels had difficulty in understanding the Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) structure. Using the TAP structure, 29 of 52 students demonstrated increased argumentation levels in the post-writing assignments. The conclusions include that writing lessons on SSI using the TAP in Earth science classes can improve the level of high school students' argumentative writing, and that the level of students' argumentation can develop with the elaboration of their level of falsification. Also, it is suggested that the science curriculum should increase students' science writing competencies by specifying science writing as one of the goals.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.620-636
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study was to analyze one science teacher's understanding of student argumentation and his explicit teaching strategies for implementing it in the classroom. One middle school science teacher, Mr. Field, and his students of 54 participated in this study. Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews, 60 hours of classroom observations, and two times of students' lab reports for eight weeks. Coding categories were developed describing the teacher's understanding of scientific argumentation and a description of the main teaching strategy, the Claim-Evidence Approach, was introduced. Toulmin's approach was employed to analyze student discourse as responses to see how much of this discourse was argumentative. The results indicated that Mr. Field defined scientific inquiry as the abilities of procedural skills through experimentation and of reasoning skills through argumentation. The Claim-Evidence Approach provided students with opportunities to develop their own claims based on their readings, design the investigation for evidence, and differentiate pieces of evidence from data to support their claims and refute others. During this approach, the teacher's role of scaffolding was critical to shift students' less extensive argumentation to more extensive argumentation through his prompts and questions. The different level of teacher's involvement, his explicit teaching strategy, and the students' scientific knowledge influenced the students' ability to develop and improve argumentation.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.399-422
• /
• 2006

Whether to reduce the current 'screen quota' for domestic films in conjunction with the FTA discussions between Korea and the United States is one of the hotly debated issues in Korea. Using Toulmin's Argumentation Model, this study attempts to trace the use of data and warrants for each pro and con claims as portrayed in newspaper editorial columns and to find its rhetorical significance. A total of 67 editorial columns were collected from 9 nationwide news dailies in Korea for the purpose. The rhetorical analysis of those articles showed that the major warrants used in each pro and con opinion were absent of the potential issues of the opponents, which inherently fails to invite rebuttals from the opposite sides. This conceptual wall in each argumentation models implies an inactive conversation and subsequent absence of clash between the pro and con argumentation fields. It is thus suggested for opinion writers to find more adequate evidences to support the data and warrants to hold persuasive power of their respective claims, ultimately to enhance the public discourse among citizens.