While current perspectives on the scientific enterprise see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists, science education has paid little attention to them. Recently, the usefulness of argumentation as a tool of the analysis and interpretation of science classroom discussions and debates, especially for the purposes of understanding how students engage in the construction and evaluation of scientific knowledge claims, has begun to get renewed interest in education (Duschl, Ellenbogen, & Erduran, 1999; Kelly, Drucker, & Chen, 1998; Kuhn, 1992, 1993; Newton et al., 1999; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). Jimenez et al. claimed, Argumentation is   particularly relevant in science education since a goal of scientific inquiry is the generation and justification of knowledge claims, beliefs and actions taken to understand nature (Jimenez- Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000, p. 75).^ Researchers highlight the importance of argumentation for a variety of reason, such as to provide opportunities to learn about science, not merely science content (Driver et al., 2000; Osborne et al., 2004), to make students’ scientific thinking and reasoning more visible (Bell & Linn, 2000; Chinn & Anderson, 1998) and to support students in developing scientific thinking (Kuhn, 1992, 1993; Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997).  Some research paid attention to the teachers’ argumentation also (Russell, 1983; Zembal- Saul, Munford, Crawford, Friedrichsen, & Land,   2002).

Application of argumentation theory in science education has two streams. The approach applying argumentation theory has contributed to meaningful analysis of classroom discourse in multiple contexts (Kelly et al., 1998; Sunal, Sunal, & Tirri, 2001; Watson, Swain, & McRobbie, 2004). For example, Chinn  and Anderson (1998) conceptualised interactive argumentation as discussions in which participants present reasons and evidence for different positions. A second application of argumentation theory focuses on the written argument such as students’ reports or online texts (Bell & Linn, 2000; Kelly et al., 1998; Kelly & Takao, 2002).

Previous research in students’ discourse has relied on the application of analytical forms of  arguments  (Kuhn,  1993) or Toutin’s model for arguments (Bell & Linn, 2000; Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Kelly et al., 1998). In these studies, emphasis was placed on the structural features and content of arguments produced by a single inpidual. The overall structure of argumentation involving several people has received little attention. In addition, in the context of actual argument,  claims may serve as data in more complex chains of reasoning and warrants are not explicit  in most  arguments (Chinn,  &  Anderson,  1998).  Some researchers tried to devise schemes which more adequately fit the structure of the group discourse and evidence which students generate (Duschl  et  al. 1999).

In previous research, however, most purposes of analysis of arguments are evaluating the quality of arguments. Little is known about the way and process students learn to argue, support and refine arguments in the context of scientific inquiry. Hence, the purpose of this study is not to evaluate but to describe and understand students’ argumentation, and we focused on the process of argumentation rather than the form and content of the argument.

Materials and Methods

Participants

In Korea, there are few opportunities for criticizing results of experiments or for suggesting alternative interpretations in science classes. Many students think that

Inquiry is only collecting data or verifying facts that they already know (Kim & Song, 2003). Participating in this study was their first experience doing open inquiry, writing a report for peers and having a critical discussion.

The participants were eight student volunteers and their science teacher. The students were two boys and six girls of grade 8 in middle school in Seoul, Korea. Their achievement levels in science were middle or high but participants had little experience in open inquiry and in critical discussion in science class. The teacher had four years of teaching experience in middle school at the time of the study. The teacher’s role in this inquiry activity was that of a material provider and a chairman for discussion.