• 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 Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.739-751
• /
• 2010

The research reported in this study focused on an analysis of argumentation in the inquiry discourse among pre-service science teachers. For about 3 months, 7 groups of 24 pre-service science teachers participated in an open-ended inquiry and performed 10 inquiry discourses. All discourses were collected by video-recording and transcribed. To analyze features of argumentation discourse, analytic tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern and cognitive argumentation scheme were applied to discussion transcripts. The results were as follows: First, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'meaning unit' was 'claim-warrant-data-rebuttal-backing.' Second, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'dialogue unit' was 'CW-CD-CDW-CWR-CR'. Third, more rebuttals were found than other discussions. Fourth, the second argumentative discussion showed a higher level than the first.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2015

Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distinctive features (e.g. interdisciplinary, controversial, value-laden, etc.), Toulmin's model would not fit into the context. Therefore, we attempted to develop an analytical framework for SSI dialogic argumentation by addressing the concepts of 'discourse clusters' and 'discourse schemes.' Discourse clusters indicated a series of utterances created for a similar dialogical purpose in the SSI contexts. Discourse schemes denoted meaningful discourse units that well represented the features of SSI reasoning. In this study, we presented six types of discourse clusters and 19 discourse schemes. We applied the framework to the data of students' group discourse on SSIs (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear energy, etc.) in order to verify its validity and applicability. The results indicate that the framework well explained the overall flow, dynamics, and features of students' discourse on SSI.