Abstract
Recent studies have focused on how argumentation, an authentic scientific practice, can be introduced in school science education. In addition, these studies have proposed analytical frameworks for assessing students’ argumentation. Although these frameworks are based on Toulmin’s argument model, there are some differences among them. This study aims to make suggestions for refining the analytical framework by comparing and examining five representative analytical frameworks. We found that the five frameworks focus on claim, data, warrant, and backing. Moreover, the frameworks can be distinguished according to whether or not they involve focus on qualifiers, and the application of rebuttal is classified into two types. By considering these frameworks’ commonalities and differences, we could offer suggestions for a new analytical framework.
