This dissertation work entails three related studies on the investigation of Peer-Led Guided Inquiry student discourse in a General Chemistry I course through argumentation. The first study, Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer-led sessions, is focused on examining arguments and participation patterns in small student groups without peer leader intervention. The findings of this study revealed that students were mostly engaged in co-constructed arguments, that a discrepancy in the participation of the group members existed, and students were able to correct most of the incorrect claims on their own via argumentation. The second study, Exploration of peer leader verbal behaviors as they intervene with small groups in college general chemistry, examines the interactive discourse of the peer leaders and the students during peer leader intervention. The relationship between the verbal behaviors of the peer leaders and the student argumentation is explored in this study. The findings of this study demonstrated that peer leaders used an array of verbal behaviors to guide students to construct chemistry concepts, and that a relationship existed between student argument components and peer leader verbal behaviors. The third study, Use of Tolumin's Argumentation Scheme for student discourse to gain insight about guided inquiry activities in college chemistry, is focused on investigating the relationship between student arguments without peer leader intervention and the structure of published guided inquiry ChemActivities. The relationship between argumentation and the structure of the activities is explored with respect to prompts, questions, and the segmented Learning Cycle structure of the ChemActivities. Findings of this study revealed that prompts were effective in eliciting arguments, that convergent questions produced more arguments than directed questions, and that the structure of the Learning Cycle successfully scaffolded arguments. A semester of video data from two different small student groups facilitated by two different peer leaders was used for these three related studies. An analytic framework based on Toulmin's argumentation scheme was used for the argumentation analysis of the studies. This dissertation work focused on the three central elements of the peer-led classroom, students, peer leader, and the ChemActivities, illuminates effective discourse important for group learning. Overall, this dissertation work contributes to science education by providing both an analytic framework useful for investigating group processes and crucial strategies for conducting effective cooperative learning and promoting student argumentation. The findings of this dissertation work have valuable implications in the professional development of teachers specifically for group interventions in the implementation of cooperative learning reforms.

This study draws on the theories of pluralism and solidarism from the English School to analyze the approaches of Security Council members towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Libya and Syria. Using Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation analysis, the study also provides a normative critique of these arguments. The study illuminates the divergent positions taken by the permanent members of the UN Security Council in the context of R2P during the crises in Syria and Libya. The analysis uncovers two starkly different approaches. On one side, representatives from Great Britain, France, and the United States advocate for the protection of human rights, democracy, and freedom. On the other side, representatives from Russia and China prioritize state sovereignty and the maintenance of order and stability. This stark contrast underscores the complexity and challenges inherent in implementing R2P. The study also highlights the concrete arguments and approaches taken by the Security Council’s permanent members. This provides a detailed understanding of how these differences manifest in practice and how they affect decision-making in the Security Council.  Based on the normative analysis, The study found that the normative frameworks of pluralism and solidarism offer distinct perspectives on human rights and state sovereignty, influencing the strength of the permanent members' arguments. Pluralism emphasizes state sovereignty and non-intervention, showing skepticism towards R2P, while solidarism highlights the protection of human rights and supports international interventions, aligning with R2P principles. In practice, examples like Libya and Syria have demonstrated the complexity and challenges of implementing R2P. In the case of Libya, NATO's intervention led to significant loss of life and destabilization, questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of the actions. This situation has underscored the difficulty of balancing the protection of human rights with respect for state sovereignty. The integration of Responsibility While Protecting is proposed in R2P's third pillar to ensure responsible and effective humanitarian interventions.