Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education (대한지구과학교육학회지)

The Korean Society of Earth Science Education (대한지구과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis on argumentation structure development of preservice teachers through argumentative writing on earth science related SSI

지구과학 관련 사회적 문제(socio-scientific issue)와 관련된 논증적 글쓰기를 통해 알아본 예비교사들의 논증구조 발달 분석

  • Received : 2014.03.23
  • Accepted : 2014.04.23
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the degree of argumentation structure development and factors of development of preservice teachers through SSI related argumentative writings. The study was conducted with 16 preservice teachers that students taking elementary science education theory class in K university located in Chungbuk. The testees wrote six SSI related argumentative writings (once a week), and we examined the degree of argumentation structure development and the change in the recognition of SSI of the preservice teachers by comparing the writings before and after the experiments. The experimental results showed that argumentation structure of the preservice teachers'writings improved and argument level (argument capability) of them also increased as the number of writing was increased. Factors that affect the argumentation structure improvement are mainly argumentation structure education, a number of writings, feedbacks, and subjects related to SSI. In this aspect, the argumentative writing on SSI has the effect of developing scientific sophistication and enhancing the decision-making power of students, and it has positive impacts in science education.

Keywords

References

  1. Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Argumentative discourse in a high school chemistry classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 106(8), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb17755.x
  2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning for the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
  3. Colaizzi, P. E. (1978), Psychological research as the phenomenologist view it existential phenomenology: Oxford University press.
  4. Flower, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909
  5. Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310905
  6. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in science genes: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  7. Gragson, D. E., & Hagen, J. P. (2010). Developing technical writing skills in the physical chemistry laboratory: A progressive approach employing peer review. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 62-55. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed800015t
  8. Lee Hyun-ju, & Chang Hyun-sook(2007). The Comparison of State-level U.S. Science Curricula with Science Teachers' Perception Regarding Teaching Socioscientiifc Issues(SSI). The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 10(1), 189-209.
  9. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855419
  10. Ministry of Education and Science Technology(2009). Korean 2009 Revision Science Curriculum. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  11. National Research Council[NRC], (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  12. Newton, p., Driver, R., & Osborn, J. (1999). The plaace of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  13. Ochsner, R., & Fowler, J. (2004). Playing devil's advocate: Evaluating the literature of the WAC/WID movement. Review of Educational Research, 7492), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074002117
  14. O'Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (Eds.) (1998). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  15. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  16. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U
  17. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  18. Song Yun-mi, Yang Il-ho, Kim Ju-yeon, & Choi, Hyun-dong(2011). A Study of the Elementary School Teachers' Perception of Science Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 31(5), 788-800.
  19. Wee Soo-meen, & Lim Sung-man(2013). Awareness and Eductional Needs Concerning SSI of Korean Pre-service Elementary Teachers Related to Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Journal of Science Education in Korea, 37(2), 294-309. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2013.37.2.294
  20. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for sosioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048

Cited by

  1. Examining Elementary School Students' Awareness about Socio-scientific Issues and Solutions about Environmental Topics by Using Their Drawings vol.35, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2016.35.1.111