| FIGURES | ||
| 1.1. | The structure of an argument according to Toulmin (1958/2003). | 4 |
| 2.1. | This revised transcription of Fragment 2.1 includes the simultaneous actions of the recipients resulting in an inherently social transaction of corresponding. The reply arises in and from attending and receiving speech, which together constitute the phenomenon of responding. It, too, is a transaction and thus social through and through. | 18 |
| 2.2. | The drawing allows different figure–ground constellations. Depending on how you gaze, the dominant figure may be a white Maltese cross or a black cross along the diagonals. Some may also see something like a square circus tent viewed from above. | 24 |
| 2.3. | A scene from an elementary classroom where 20 students are engaged in a tug of war against their science teacher (in doorway), who had “rigged” the competition in his favor using a block and tackle. The inclination of the students’ bodies give a sense of the effort they make to win against their teacher. | 25 |
| 2.4. | A scene from the whole-class discussion where the students and teacher are engaged in an argumentation about why the 20 students had lost the tug of war. Here, Shamir presents the design of a competition that he proposes would no longer favor the teacher. | 26 |
| 3.1. | Introducing the mystery object. | 39 |
| 3.2. | Observing and discussing in a small group. | 42 |
| 3.3. | Observing the mystery object and onion together. | 49 |
| 4.1. | This artistic rendering of a mixed second- and third-grade classroom shows how the students sit along an approximate arc at one end of which the teacher (right) is situated. | 59 |
| 4.2. | This artistic rendering shows the children and the teaching assistant gathered around a water jar in which their pieces of carrot float. The children are asked to generate hypotheses about what makes the carrot float in the water to which salt has been added. | 61 |
| 4.3. | The two articulations of the same phrase exhibit different intonations, which distinguishes the functions of the phrases the conversation. The dictionary sense (“meaning”) of the phrases is the same: salt is making the carrot heavier. | 69 |
| 5.1. | Physical abstraction in the event. | 87 |
| 6.1. | At the end of the whole-class discussion, the chalkboard was littered with drawings that the teacher or students drew while talking the design of a pulley system to be used in a tug of war. Some drawings were erased and their place taken by others. | 93 |
| 6.2. | a The early part of the classroom talk about the tug of war sought an explanation for the result of the competition. The different explanations (warrants) are contested, requiring data and warrants. b In the second part of the talk, the claim “we would have won” is discussed, and different warrants are produced—and themselves contested (rebutted). | 97 |
| 6.3. | The setup of the tug of war using a separation of pulleys. There are two sets of pulleys. One set is attached to the railing (banister), whereas students pull on the other one. A third rope is attaché on one end to the banister, flows through the pulleys, and is pulled on by the teacher on the other end. The result is a five to one reduction of the student-supplied force. | 99 |
| 7.1. | Although there is a continuous movement from finalizing the diagram(a) to laying down the chalk (b) to orienting in the direction of the opponent (c), and back to the diagram again, there are different in-order-tomotives in play, none of which can be explained in terms of a composite of body or mind. | 111 |
| 7.2. | In normal situations where speakers are in agreement and aligned, the pitch levels of the next speaker tend to pick up where the preceding speaker has left off and then return to the second’s speaker normal range. The non-aligned pitches manifest the same differences that also manifest themselves in other ways: the different positions that are worked out through scientific argumentation. | 112 |
| TABLES | ||
| 3.1. | The claim-evidence covariation in reasoning. | 43 |
| 3.2. | The joint space of classroom reasoning. | 47 |
| 5.1. | Examples of children’s claims and evidence on their science notebooks. | 81 |
List of Figures and Tables
in Dialogical Argumentation and Reasoning in Elementary Science Classrooms
Autor:innen:
und
Mijung Kim
Mijung Kim
Search for other papers by Mijung Kim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mijung Kim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Wolff-Michael Roth
Wolff-Michael Roth
Search for other papers by Wolff-Michael Roth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wolff-Michael Roth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed