Thesis advisor: Katherine L. McNeill / The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) represent a significant shift in the goals of U.S. science education. Instead of a focus solely on content acquisition, the NGSS aim to engage students in the practices of science. Teachers will require substantial support, in large part from science leaders at the district level, to change their instruction to accomplish this vision. However, little is known about how these leaders conceptualize the NGSS. Therefore, this dissertation utilizes a sensemaking theoretical framework to explore the beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of district science leaders about one of the NGSS science practices, scientific argumentation. Greater understandings of these constructs can aid in designing appropriate supports for district leaders and meeting the challenges of implementing the NGSS. Fifty-three district leaders from states that have adopted the NGSS participated in a survey focused on their beliefs and PCK for argumentation. After the administration of the survey, 10 district leaders who represented a range of states and beliefs were selected for follow-up interviews. These interviews were semi-structured and focused on the same areas of belief as in the survey. The findings from the surveys and interviews indicate that most district science leaders are supporters of the NGSS and believe that scientific argumentation offers important benefits for students. Many leaders referenced one or more of the NGSS science practices in their descriptions of effective science education and asserted that they believe that the NGSS will require teachers in their districts to make substantial changes in their current instruction. However, some leaders also maintained their beliefs in the effectiveness of traditional instructional methods that are not compatible with the NGSS, and few leaders mentioned critique as an essential component of argumentation. In addition, many leaders demonstrated challenges in their PCK for argumentation, specifically related to evidence and reasoning in scientific arguments and the role of critique in dialogical interactions. Therefore, supporting leaders to develop more accurate conceptions and knowledge of the NGSS and argumentation should be a priority for districts nationwide. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Teacher Education, Special Education, Curriculum and Instruction.

Argumentation and proof have played a fundamental role in mathematics education in recent years. The author of this dissertation would like to investigate the development of the proving process within a dynamic geometry system in order to support tertiary students understanding the proving process. The strengths of this dynamic system stimulate students to formulate conjectures and produce arguments during the proving process. Through empirical research, we classified different levels of proving and proposed a methodological model for proving. This methodological model makes a contribution to improve students’ levels of proving and develop their dynamic visual thinking. We used Toulmin model of argumentation as a theoretical model to analyze the relationship between argumentation and proof. This research also offers some possible explanation so as to why students have cognitive difficulties in constructing proofs and provides mathematics educators with a deeper understanding on the proving process within a dynamic geometry system. / Argumentation und Beweis haben eine fundamentale Rolle in der Mathematikdidaktik in den letzten Jahren gespielt. Der Autor der vorliegenden Arbeit möchte die Entwicklung des Prozesses beweisen, in einer dynamischen Geometrie-System zu untersuchen, um das Verständnis der Studierenden im Tertiärbereich beweisen Prozess zu unterstützen. Die Stärken dieses dynamische System stimulieren Studierenden Vermutungen zu formulieren und Argumente zu produzieren während des Beweisprozesses. Durch empirische Forschung, klassifiziert wir verschiedene Niveaustufen zu beweisen und schlugen ein methodisches Modell für Beweisprozesse. Dieser methodologische Modell leistet einen Beitrag zur studentischen Niveaustufen des Beweises zu verbessern und entwickeln ihre dynamische-visuelle Denken. Wir verwendeten das Argumentationsmodell von Toulmin als theoretisches Modell, die Beziehung zwischen Argumentation und Beweis zu analysieren. Diese Forschung bietet auch einige mögliche Erklärung dafür, warum so Studierenden haben kognitive Schwierigkeiten bei der Beweis-Konstruktion und liefert Pädagogen mit einem tieferen Verständnis auf der Beweisprozess in einem dynamischen Geometriesystem.

Zugl.: Dresden, Techn. Univ., Diss., 2004

Zugl.: Berlin, Freie Univ., Diss., 2005

Zugl.: Potsdam, Univ., Diss., 2007

Stuttgart, Univ., Diss., 2001.

Univ. Frankfurt (Main), Diss., 2005/2006.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2004--Freiburg (Breisgau).

Orientador: Eduardo Roberto Junqueira Guimarães / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-04T03:29:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sapata_AndrezaCarubelli_M.pdf: 455086 bytes, checksum: 7d949778652b0681ddaf0f7264292835 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005 / Resumo: O propósito desse estudo é analisar, por um lado, as funções argumentativas, bem como os fenômenos semânticos da polifonia e implicação estabelecidos por então no texto escrito, e por outro, o operador então na organização textual, contrapondo-o aos outros operadores conclusivos, considerando tipo de discurso, grau de formalidade do texto, etc. Para tanto, abordar-se-ão aspectos apontados pela Semântica Enunciativa, especialmente os estudos de Oswald Ducrot e Eduardo Guimarães, e Lingüística Textual, principalmente os estudos de Ingedore Koch, e serão utilizados, como corpus, materiais retirados de jornais e revistas de reportagens publicados no Brasil / Abstract: The purpose of this study is research, on one hand, the argumentative functions, as well as polyphony and implication set by so in written text, and, on another hand, the operator so in the textual organization, comparing to others conclusive operators, considering type of discourse, formality degree, etc. In order to this, it will be mentioned aspects of Enunciative Semantic, specially the studies of Oswald Ducrot and Eduardo Guimarães, and Textual Linguistic, mainly the studies of Ingedore Koch, and it will be used, as corpus, materials extracted from newspaper and magazines published in Brazil / Mestrado / Semantica / Mestre em Linguística

This study seeks to consider argumentative discourse in poetry, and to attempt to detect the arguments in the poetic discourse of the Diwan Group in the light of their principles, trying to present a different insight into the examination of modern Arabic poetry by exploring its ability to persuade and influence. The study applies the argumentation theory to the Diwan Group’s poetic output by attempting to answer the question of how the three members of the Diwan Group imbued their poems through the process of argumentation. The study aims to reveal the effectiveness of argumentation in the structure of the group’s poetic discourse considering the presuppositions. This means that the concept of poetry and critical works of the three members of the Diwan Group could be presupposed to be ‘ideal’ and any poetic analysis is made in the light of this concept. In other words, the study highlights the argumentative process in order to illustrate how the Diwan Group’s trend towards the romantic rebelled against the Classical school. By applying the theory of argumentation to the poetic output, it would essentially mean that the poem seeks to create a special meaning through language in the communicative process between the poet and the reader. This process is the essence of the theory of argumentation: to persuade the reader of the argument and to reach the desired result through justification and evidence. As the meaning of each of the selected poems is significant and considerable, this study relies on the pragmatics method, where argumentation itself is an essential branch of pragmatics. The pragmatic approach examines how the purposes of the writer (or speaker) are detected by the receiver. It considers literary works as essential verbal works that have been expanded to encourage the addressee to full persuasion. It can be seen that pragmatics is based on the study of the meaning that the speaker or writer wants to communicate and the listener or reader explains. It is worth noting that both the pragmatic approach and the theory of argumentation endeavour to throw light on the characteristics and implications of literary discourse in different genres, based on communication between two parties. As the title suggests, this study is designed coherently in three parts: The Foundation, the Structure of Argumentation and the Structure of Poetry respectively. Part I includes two chapters; the introductory chapter and the background of both the Group and Theory which considers the dialectic of Argumentation and Poetry. Chapter Three, the first in part II, discusses the Constituents of Argumentation by studying three aspects; the bonds of convergence between Argumentation and Romanticism, repetition and finally, poetic dialogue. Chapter Four covers the Patterns of Argumentation, which are: Syllogism, Fallacy, and thirdly, Argumentation by Example. Chapter Five, the first in part III, conducts a deeper analysis into the common-places where arguments are found, which are Love, Meditation and Nature. Each poetic theme is divided into related arguments. Chapter Six examines Argumentative Images through a theoretical preface concerning the link between imaginary and argumentation, following by the Sources of Argumentative images through Human being, Nature, Religion and Philosophy. Finally, the Functions of images of Wisdom and comparison are examined. Chapter Seven presents the Conclusion, which summarises the most important points deduced from the study and the recommendations made. Finally, as I have studied the group’s poetic material, I have found that one of them can simultaneously be regarded as a poet, writer and critic; and that argumentation was the ideal way for the poets to disseminate their ideas and principles. Moreover, it can concluded that the poetic discourse of the Diwan Group’s focus concerns two aspects: the critical and the poetic. The critical element relies on the poets’ critique (especially that of the revival poets), that clarifies the nature of poetry, and the impact of emotion on it, as well as portraying both Life and Self in various aspects. The poetic discourse that was formed in the first fruits of the 'new poetry' was an attempt to replace Classical poems with another focus that was related to emotion and Romanticism.