Reproduction de : Thèse de doctorat : Philosophie : Lyon 3 : 2005. / Titre provenant de l'écran-titre. Bibliogr.

Practicing argumentation in secondary school classrooms benefits students both in terms of learning how to argue and learning the course material at hand. Amidst the onset and growth of engineering design courses in secondary schools, this dissertation is an exploratory case study to characterize the use of argumentation among novice student engineering designers. The setting is a high school robotics class. Specifically, a group of students from one class section teamed up with a group of students from a separate class section to design and build a single robot. The team members communicated online via a shared, editable document. That text is the primary data set for my analysis. I looked for indications of argumentation structure that emerged from the online discussion, given that, to my knowledge, the students had not been taught argumentation strategies, per se. Engineering design is relatively new to secondary school, so I thought it appropriate to develop a baseline—a case study that reveals how students communicate about their designs when left largely to their own devices. This study may inform the development argumentation scaffolds that support the students’ existing strengths while ameliorating their weaknesses. My analytical supposition was that argumentation in design will take the form of resolving differences of opinion toward the creation of a single design. Hence, I used Pragma-dialectic theory as my analytical framework. It is a broad theory, based upon resolving differences of opinion in everyday conversation. As such, Pragma-dialectic theory may also be able to encompass the idiosyncrasies of team design, such as reliance on intuition and experience, as well as the important roles that designed objects play throughout the process. Taken together, the importance of intuition, experience, and objects suggests multiple modes of communication that ought to be considered arguments within design deliberations. Results suggest that the students worked to resolve differences of design opinions. In doing so, the students relied heavily on their designed objects to make their arguments meaningful. I classified five object-based claims which emerged from the students’ discussions: keystone, tinkering, visual, tactile, and counterfactual. These form the beginnings of a theory of object-based argumentation. / text

This study involves an analysis of arguments on parental allowance debates and sex legislation debates. The debates that will be analyzed are the following; allowance, equality bonus, stricter punishment for the purchase of sexual services and men's violence against women, violence and oppression, and violence in same-sex relationships. This empirical research is a qualitative study in its entirety, as for the method is an argumentation analysis. The arguments which the debates contain will be analyzed from a gender perspective. The theoretical question is: What is considered equality as a gender perspective? The empirical question is: How did parliament debates the issue of parental and prostitution laws issue from a gender perspective? The debates about genus and gender equality perspective have been a crucial issue in the Swedish Parliament. That women and men are equal or unequal has been heavily emphasized in the debates. My study aims at an in depth investigation in these debates based on an analysis of arguments. Moreover, I have evaluated what gender combined with democracy and democratic self-determination entails. I have structured my analysis up by various arguments and analyzed these arguments on the basis of the perspectives above. My conclusion is that the first two debates were treated particularly in the genus and the gender equality perspective and there was a possibility to connect the theories in relevant argumentations/discussions. However, complex problems emerged in the last two debates, stricter penalty regarding the purchase of sexual services, violence against women, violence and oppression, and violence in same-sex relationships where gender and equality issues have been avoided to be treated. Generally occurring from the bourgeois side than from the opposition.

Mathematical argumentation is fundamental to doing mathematics and developing new knowledge. Working from the view that mathematical argumentation is also integral to teaching and learning mathematics, this study investigated teachers’ use of mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) to support student participation in mathematical argumentation. Classroom observations were made of three case-study teachers’ implementation of a three-day curriculum unit on mathematical argumentation and supplemented with paper and pencil assessments of teachers’ MKT. Teaching moves, or teachers’ actions directed toward supporting argumentation, were identified as a unit of discourse in which MKT-in-action appeared. Teachers’ MKT showed up in three types of teaching moves including: Revoicing by Reformulation, Responding to Student Difficulties, and Pressing for Generalization in Defining. MKT that was evident in these moves included knowledge of core information in argument, heuristic methods, and vii formulation of mathematical definition through and in argumentation. Findings highlight that supporting mathematical argumentation requires teachers to have a sophisticated understanding of the subject matter as well as how concepts develop through argumentation. Findings have limitations in understanding complex teaching practices by considering MKT as a single factor. The study has implications on teacher learning and MKT assessments. / text

Scientific communities have established social mechanisms for proposing explanations, questioning evidence, and validating claims. Opportunities like these are often not a given in science classrooms (Vellom, Anderson, & Palincsar, 1993) even though the National Science Education Standards (NSES, 1996) state that a scientifically literate person should be able to “engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about important issues in science and technology” (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Research further documents that students’ science conceptions undergo little modification with the traditional teaching experienced in many high school science classrooms (Duit, 2003, Dykstra, 2005). This case study is an examination of the discourse that occurred as four high school physics students collaborated on solutions to three physics lab problems during which the students made predictions and experimentally generated data to support their predictions. The discourse patterns were initially examined for instances of concept negotiations. Selected instances were further examined using Toulmin’s (2003) pattern for characterizing argumentation in order to understand the students’ scientific reasoning strategies and to document the role of collaboration in facilitating conceptual modifications and changes. Audio recordings of the students’ conversations during the labs, written problems turned in to the teacher, interviews of the students, and observations and field notes taken during student collaboration were used to document and describe the students’ challenges and successes encountered during their collaborative work. The findings of the study indicate that collaboration engaged the students and generated two types of productive science discourse: concept negotiations and procedure negotiations. Further analysis of the conceptual and procedure negotiations revealed that the students viewed science as sensible and plausible but not as a tool they could employ to answer their questions. The students’ conceptual growth was inhibited by their allegiance to the authority of the science laws as learned in their school classroom. Thus, collaboration did not insure conceptual change. Describing student discourse in situ contributes to science education research about teaching practices that facilitate conceptual understandings in the science classroom.

This Master’s thesis examines the discussions about the new Swedish legal deposit legislation for electronicdocuments, related to Jürgen Habermas’ theories around the public sphere. In 2009, a draft of the law proposal was sent out to various authorities and organizations who were asked tocontribute their views on this matter. This study looks at who has responded of those asked, and what commonviews are apparent within these responses. The responses from two different categories are focused on –universities and other authorities, examining if any similarities or differences can be noticed in the arguments inthe different categories’ responses to the proposed law change. This information has been first analyzed through content analysis, providing an overview to the respondentsof the draft, and the different views which have arisen. Argumentation analysis has then been used to examinehow specific respondents have argued their views, focusing on the National Library of Sweden and the NationalArchives of Sweden. The most common views and arguments revolve around the definitions suggested in the proposal, regardingwhich documents are to be collected and who is responsible for their delivery. Many respondents also mentionedtheir desire to be able to fulfill their legal deposit obligations by delivering documents through networks. Habermas’ theories on the public sphere, which he claims to exist in today’s society, are very similar to thetheories of the public sphere addressed within this study. The authorities and organizations which have beenasked to contribute opinions towards this proposal are the same one who will be directly involved with the legaldeposit itself; while the future users of these collected electronic documents, namely scholars and the public,have been excluded from this discussion. Some respondents remarked upon the importance of the documentsbeing available to those to which they will be of use. However, the discussion has primarily concentrated on howthe delivery of these documents can be affected in the easiest possible manner for those involved.

<p>The research reported in this paper involves the use of dialogical argumentation in scientific context with 7-9 year olds as part of teaching and learning in primary classrooms. To develop an understanding of scientific concepts, four suitable collaborative activities on river pollution were used as a stimulus to effectively engage learners in scientific reasoning and use evidence for decision-making through cognitive harmonization. The research, involved four groups of five children each. Data were collected through analysis of children&rsquo / s Water Pollution Questionnaire (WPQ), classroom observation, documentation of field notes, conversations and focus group interviews. The study found that all groups were able to engage in the activities to some extent, but that good quality argumentation develops when children are familiar with working in this manner. This study sought to investigate the opportunities, possibilities and challenges associated with a dialogical argumentation teaching and learning approach in a primary school science class A mapping technique was used to analyze the children&rsquo / s discussions and identify the quality of their different &ldquo / levels&rdquo / of argument. This study confirmed that an argumentation based instruction was an effective way of enhancing learners&rsquo / understanding of river pollution. The learners&rsquo / listening skills improved tremendously and they were actively involve during discussions and provided claims with valid grounds or reasons. They were also very enthusiastic and challenged each other&rsquo / s claims during these argumentation lessons, but most of all was the enjoyment that was visible on their young faces. Further research needs to be carried out over a longer period to determine the effectiveness of an argumentation based instruction.</p>

The core pluralist thesis about logic, broadly construed, is the claim that two or more logics are correct. In this thesis I discuss a uniquely interesting variant of logical pluralism that I call logical contextualism. Roughly, the logical contextualists’ thought is that, for fixed values p and q, the statement “p entails q” and its cognates such as “q is a logical consequence of p” or “the argument from p to q is logically valid,” are true in some contexts and false in others. After developing a contextualist account of logical pluralism I proceed to examine implications that, if true, logical contextualism would have on discussions about reasonable disagreement among epistemic peers and on discussions about the aim and purpose of argumentation. I show that logical contextualism allows for the possibility of logically-based reasonable disagreements among epistemic peers. In the face of such disagreements there is no obligation to revise one’s belief, nor is there any obligation to degrade the peer status of the agent with whom one stands in disagreement. The possibility of logically-based reasonable disagreements, it will be argued, suggests a reconceptualization of the aims and purpose of argumentation. Most accounts of the purpose of argumentation hold that argumentation’s primary purpose is to achieve rational agreement on a contested issue. Such an agreement is thought to require that at least one of the parties in the argumentation change their beliefs or commitments. However, the existence of logically-based reasonable disagreements, I argue, implies that there are some argumentations that ought not to resolve with agreement. Therefore, rather than understanding argumentation as purely an effort to convince an opponent, or as a means to reach consensus, I claim that argumentation ought to be understood as an effort to gain a better understanding of divergent and perhaps irreconcilable perspectives.

<p>The research reported in this paper involves the use of dialogical argumentation in scientific context with 7-9 year olds as part of teaching and learning in primary classrooms. To develop an understanding of scientific concepts, four suitable collaborative activities on river pollution were used as a stimulus to effectively engage learners in scientific reasoning and use evidence for decision-making through cognitive harmonization. The research, involved four groups of five children each. Data were collected through analysis of children&rsquo / s Water Pollution Questionnaire (WPQ), classroom observation, documentation of field notes, conversations and focus group interviews. The study found that all groups were able to engage in the activities to some extent, but that good quality argumentation develops when children are familiar with working in this manner. This study sought to investigate the opportunities, possibilities and challenges associated with a dialogical argumentation teaching and learning approach in a primary school science class A mapping technique was used to analyze the children&rsquo / s discussions and identify the quality of their different &ldquo / levels&rdquo / of argument. This study confirmed that an argumentation based instruction was an effective way of enhancing learners&rsquo / understanding of river pollution. The learners&rsquo / listening skills improved tremendously and they were actively involve during discussions and provided claims with valid grounds or reasons. They were also very enthusiastic and challenged each other&rsquo / s claims during these argumentation lessons, but most of all was the enjoyment that was visible on their young faces. Further research needs to be carried out over a longer period to determine the effectiveness of an argumentation based instruction.</p>

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal