1. Teachers Argumentation about Construction of Mountain Cable Car in Yushan National Park Issue Hsiao, Ming-chun, Yu, Shu-mey*, Chiu, Yu-wen, Huang, Hsin-chiao Graduate Institute and Department of Science Application and Dissemination, National Taichung University TAIWAN

2. Introduction What we know vs. How we know The ability of argumentation = The sense to reality Teachers must learn how to argue before teach students to argue Above all, we design the issue about construction of mountain cable car in Yushan national park

3. Objectives of the study The quality and the argument situation of teachers argumentation about this issue. The difference of argumentation quality base on three kinds of epistemological views. The difference of argumentation quality base on four round argumentation experiences. The situation of teachers argumentation conceptual evolution to the issue.

4. Theoretical framework Toulmins Argument Pattern (TAP) (1958) provides a framework for analyzing argument structure and specifies features such as claims, data, warrants, backings, and rebuttals. DataClaim Rebuttal Warrant Backing Because So…

5. Quality of argumentation The justification of claims (Sadler & Fowler, 2006) Leveldescription 0No justification & no claim 1Only claim, no justification 2Simple justification 3Complex justification 4Complex justification & counter warrant

6. Epistemological Views Tsai & Liu (2005) E: Empiricist oriented M: Mixed C: Constructivist oriented

7. Conceptual evolution Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz (2005) Change No change Evolution

8. Design and Procedure

9. Subjects Twenty in-service primary and secondary teachers who studied for a science education master degree in middle Taiwan participated in the study. Empiricist oriented Mixed Constructivist oriented Total Male2529 Female35311 Total510520

10. We are here !! Where TAIWAN is

11. Issue of argumentation Will you agree the construction of mountain cable car in Yushan national park? Provide your own reason.

12. Design E-Learning system Argumentation: 4 rounds

13. Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4Group 5Group 6 AgreeDisagree Issue discuss

14. 4 round argumentation rounddescription 1Made their own arguments in mountain cable car issue task first 2Read two other opposite arguments and respond to their claims 3Made refinement of their arguments based on two other opposite subjects respond to their claims 4Made their own final arguments again

15. Example of argumentation roundExample 1Made their own arguments in mountain cable car issue task first 1A: I agree, because people can use cable car to take close to the nice scenes… 2Read 1st oppsite arguments: nature scenic is better than artificial scenic… 1A: I thought P2P is better than a line of trip… 3Read 2nd oppsite arguments: cable car will destroy nature scenic, extinct of organism 1A: If there is no cable car, the tourists will carry more trash and pollution… 4Read their guoups arguments and discuss their arguments together 1A: I still agree and support to construct the cable car…

16. Analysis Data collected from e-learning system & classroom group discussione-learning system Argument: revised Toulmins argument pattern (1958) Argumentation qualities: Sadler and Fowlers argumentation quality rubric (2006) Conceptual evolution: Jimenez & Pereiro(2005) Inter-rater agreement:0.94

17. Code s View s Level of change Teachers assessmen t Sources (round) Causes 5BMEvolution N 4 environmental protection environmental protection, policy, human nature 1AEEvolution P 4 environmental protection environmental protection, education, economics 3BMChange N P 4 I disagree constructing cable car… I agree, but must be evaluated by experts 6BMNo change N Example of conceptual evolution

18. Findings 1 236 arguments 149 of 236 arguments were Data and Warrant about 60% Rebuttal was about 3.8% 180 quality of argumentation segments About 50% quality of argumentation were level 2 and level 3 Level 4 was about 4.0%

19. 0: Level 0; 1: Level 1; 2: Level 2; 3: Level 3; 4: Level 4 E: Empiricist-aligned; M: Mixed; C: constructivist-oriented Findings 2

20. Findings 3

21. Findings 4 Conceptual evolution Number Change N P 2 Evolution N N P P 3333 Total8

22. CodesViews Level of change Sources (round) Causes 5BM Evolution N 4environmental protection environmental protection, policy, human nature 1AE Evolution P 4 environmental protection environmental protection, education, economics 3BM Change N P 4 I disagree, because environment & non-benefits I agree, but must be evaluated by experts 3AM Change N P 4 Because environment, I dont agree… Conditional construction, be evaluated by experts 1CE Evolution N 3 pollution No cars, no pollution 4AM Evolution P 4 environmental protection environmental protection, cable car safety 2DE Evolution N 3 & 4 ecological ecological, Tourism, education 6AC Evolution P 4 safety safety, environmental protection

23. Before (r 1 & r 2)After (r 3 & r4) CausesEnvironmental protection Non-benefits Pollution Safety Education Ecological Environmental protection Non-benefits Pollution Safety Education Ecological Policy Human nature Economics Experts opinions Comparison of causes

24. Conclusion Argument: there were more data and warrants Quality: there were more L2 & L3 Subjects with mixed epistemological views provided higher levels of argumentation. Subjects provided more L4 argumentation in R4 Subjects conceptions evolved from simple arguments (1st & 2nd round) to elaborated arguments (3rd & 4th round).

25. Suggestion Different issues Further research on epistemological views & conceptual evolution. Provide scaffolding in argumentation

26. Thank you for your attention !! Questions or comments ?