Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Argumentation Structure in Students' Writing on Socio-scientific issues (SSI): Focusing on the Unit of Climate Change in High School Earth Science I

  • Yoo, Bhyung-ho (Jeonju YoungSaeng High School) ;
  • Kwak, Youngsun (Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Park, Won-Mi (Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education)
  • Received : 2020.06.23
  • Accepted : 2020.08.25
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed the development of high school students' argumentation through their writings on socio-scientific Issues (SSI) related to the Climate Change Unit in the Earth Science I curriculum. Pre- and post-writing assignments on the two main causes of global warming were analyzed and compared. In addition, an in-depth interview of the focus group was conducted with 7 students who showed a distinct change in the level of argumentation. According to the results, 16 of 52 students remained at the same argumentation level in pre- and post-writing assignments, and students remaining at Level 2 among five levels had difficulty in understanding the Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) structure. Using the TAP structure, 29 of 52 students demonstrated increased argumentation levels in the post-writing assignments. The conclusions include that writing lessons on SSI using the TAP in Earth science classes can improve the level of high school students' argumentative writing, and that the level of students' argumentation can develop with the elaboration of their level of falsification. Also, it is suggested that the science curriculum should increase students' science writing competencies by specifying science writing as one of the goals.

Keywords

References

  1. Abell, S.K., Anderson, G., and Chezem, J., 2000, Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. Inquiry into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science, 100-119.
  2. Albe, V., 2008, When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
  3. Brown, N.J.S., Furtak, E.M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S.O., and Wilson, M., 2010, The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530551
  4. Dawson, V.M. and Venville, G., 2010, Teaching strategies for developing students' argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
  5. Duschl, R.A, 2003, The assessment of argumentation and explanation: Creating and supporting teachers' feedback strategies. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 139-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  6. Erduran, S., Simon, S., and Osborne, J., 2004, TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  7. Fowler, S.R., Zeidler, D.L., and 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
  8. Furtak, E.M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R.J., & Shemwell, J.T., 2010, A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
  9. Hogan, K., 2002, Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
  10. Jang, H. and Chung, Y., 2009, Analysis of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-Making. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(2), 253-266. (in Korean)
  11. Kim, B., Kim, H., Cho, J., and Bae, S., 2015, The effect of the argumentation lessons according to interaction on high school students' academic achievement. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education. 8(3), 309-317. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2015.8.3.309
  12. Kim, D-h., & Kim, Y-J., 2015, Analysis of argument structure in science textbooks using Toulmin's argument model: Focused on the photosynthesis unit in middle school science. Educational Research, 63, 37-64. https://doi.org/10.17253/swueri.2015.63..002
  13. Ko, Y., Choi, Y., and Lee, H., 2015, Development of an analytical framework for dialogic argumentation in the context of socioscientific issues: Based on discourse clusters and schemes. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 509-521. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0509
  14. Kuhn, D., 1986, Education for thinking. Teachers College Record, 87(4), 495-511.
  15. Kuhn, D., 1993, Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  16. Lee, H., Choi, Y., and Ko, Y., 2014, Designing collective intelligence-based instructional models for teaching socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 523-534. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0523
  17. MEST, 2011, 2009-revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, No. 2011-361. (in Korean)
  18. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press.
  19. Nussbaum, E.M., and Edwards, O.V., 2011, Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
  20. OECD, 2003, Definition and selection of competencies: Theoretical and conceptual foundation (DeSeCo). OECD Press.
  21. Oh, J.Y. and Kim, Y.S., 2009, The avocation and educational Application about Toulmin's argument model. Bumhan philosophical society, 55, 379-425. (in Korean)
  22. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and 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
  23. Park, Y-S., 2005, Analyzing explicit teaching strategies and student discourse for scientific argumentation. Doctoral dissertation, The Oregon State University. 282 p.
  24. Sadler, T.D. and Zeidler, D.L., 2005, Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  25. Wee, S., Yoon, J., and Lim, S., 2014, An Analysis on argumentation structure development of preservice teachers through argumentative writing on earth science related SSI. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 7(1), 11-23. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2014.7.1.011
  26. Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., and Howes, E.V., 2005, Beyond STS: A researchbased framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048