Figure 1. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 3rd class of group 1 argumentation
Figure 2. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 4th class of group 1 argumentation
Figure 3. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 3rd class of group 2 argumentation
Figure 4. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 4th class of group 2 argumentation
Table 1. Description of participants in the focus group
Table 2. Topic and argumentation contents for each class
Table 3. Epistemic considerations in students’ Epistemologies in Practice(Berland et al., 2015)
Table 4. Epistemic considerations by class period of Group 1
Table 5. Epistemic consideration by class period of Group 2
Table 6. Students’ epistemic considerations by group and class period
Table 7. Epistemic consideration by student background variables
Table 4. (Continued)
Table 5. (Continued)
References
- Aufschnaite C., Erduran S., Osborne J., & Simon S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
- Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
- Cavallo, A.M.L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability and students’ understanding and problem solving of genetics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6), 625-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<625::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-Q
- Choi J., Lee S., & Kim, H. (2014). Social interaction according to students' approaches to learning science and their levels of scientific knowledge during small-group argumentation, Biology Education, 42(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.4.371
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
- Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
- Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W., Editors (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
- Kang, N., & Lee E. (2013). Argument and argumentation: A review of literature for clarification of translated words, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(6), 1119-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119
- Kwon, J., & Kim, H. (2016). Exploring small group argumentation shown in designing an experiment: Focusing on students' epistemic goals and epistemic considerations for activities, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
- Maeng, S., Park, Y., & Kim, C. (2013). Methodological review of the research on argumentative discourse focused on analyzing collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 840-862. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.840
- Park, J., & Kim, H.(2012). Theoretical considerations on analytical framework design for the interactions between participants in group argumentation on socio-scientific issues, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 604-624. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.604
- Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
- Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
- Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21107
- Sandoval, W. A., & Cam, A. (2011). Elementary children’s judgements of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20426
Cited by
- 논의기반 탐구활동이 초등학생의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 주장과 증거에 미치는 영향 vol.64, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.6.389