Browse > Article

The Exploration of Open Scientific Inquiry Model Emphasizing Students' Argumentation  

Kim, Hee-Kyong (Wonmuk Middle School)
Song, Jin-Woong (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.24, no.6, 2004 , pp. 1216-1234 More about this Journal
Abstract
School science practical work is often criticized as lacking key elements of authentic science, such as peer argumentation or debate through which social consensus is obtained. The purpose of this paper is to review the recent studies about the argumentation and to explore the conditions and the model of argumentative scientific inquiry, which is specially designed open inquiry in order to facilitate students' peer argumentation. For this purpose, a theoretical discussion for the argumentative scientific inquiry as the way of authentic inquiry in schools was developed. The conditions for argumentative scientific inquiry were found to be the following: multiple arguments, students' own claims, opportunities for oral and written argumentation, equal status of debaters, and community of cooperative competition. For these conditions, the argumentative scientific inquiry was organized into experiment activities and argumentation activities. During argumentation activity, students should be guided to advance written argumentation through writing a group report for peer review and oral argumentation through a critical discussion. Through the argumentation between groups and in group, the students' arguments would be elaborated repeatedly. The feedback from argumentation links experiment activities to argumentation activities. Hence, the whole process of this inquiry model is circular.
Keywords
argumentative scientific inquiry; argumentation; open scientific inquiry; argument; report for peer review; critical discussion;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김희경, 강태욱, 송진웅(2003). 7차 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교과서 물리단원 실험의 특징. 새물리, 47(6), 387-394
2 연세대학교 언어정보개발연구원(2002). 연세 한국어사전. 서울: 두산동아
3 Boulter, C. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. S. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
4 Collette, A. T. & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill Pub. Co
5 Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work in School Science (pp. 93-108). NY: Routledge
6 Hodson, D. & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about pratical about practical work: changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683-694   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Agroso, M., & Birexas, F. (2004, April). Scientific Authority and Empirical Data in Argument Warrants about the Prestige Oil Spill. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada
8 Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
9 Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Kelly, G. J. & Talmo, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314- 342   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178   DOI
12 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
14 Millar, R. H. (1989). What scientific method and can it be taught? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in Science Education: A critical analysis. London: Routledge
15 Newton, P., Driver, R, & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science, International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Roberts, R. and Gatt, R. (2002). Investigations: collecting and using evidence. In D. Sang, and V. Wood-Robinson (Eds.), Teaching secondary scientific enquiry (pp 18-49). London: John Murray
18 Rogers, E. M. (1948). Science in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general education. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Publishers
19 Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic School Science. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
20 Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2002, April). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana
21 Taylor, C. (1996). Deiining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
22 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
23 Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. NJ: LEA
24 Watson, J.R., Swain, J.R.L, & McRobbie, C. (2004) Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45   DOI   ScienceOn
25 강태완, 김태용, 이상철, 허경호(2001). 토론의 방법. 서울:커뮤니케이션북스
26 Wellington, J. J. (1998). Practical work in science: time for a reappraisal. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3-15). NY: Routledge
27 Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanisms of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
29 Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M., K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Millar, R. H. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in Science Education is really for. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp 16-31). NY: Routledge
31 이선영(2002). 토론의 논증 구성과 사회적 상호작용에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 석사 학위 논문
32 Watson, J. R. (2000). The role of practical work. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp.57-71). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
33 Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Driver, R. (1983). The Pupil as Scientist? Milton Keynes: The Open University Press
35 Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679   DOI   ScienceOn
37 Rigano, D. L. & Ritchie, S. M. (1995). Student disclosure of fraudulent practice in school laboratories. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 353-363   DOI
38 Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
39 Bell, P. & Linn. M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE, International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum
41 Driver, R. (1989). The Construction of Scientific Knowledge in School Classrooms. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education (pp. 83-105). NY: The Falmer Press
42 Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Hackling, M. W. & Fairbrother, R. W. (1996). Helping students to do open investigation in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4), 26-33
44 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborn, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312   DOI   ScienceOn
45 Kelly G. J. & Hilton-Brown, B. (2001, March). Discourse studies of science education: a review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
46 Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld(Eds.), Emergence of Mathematical Meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
47 Lepper, M. R. & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. E. Ames(Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: Goals and Cognitions (VoI.3, pp. 73-105). Orlando, FL: Academic Press
48 Cunningham, C. M. & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483-499   DOI   ScienceOn
49 민병곤(2001), 논증 이론의 현황과 국어 교육의 과제. 국어교육학연구, 12(1), 237-285
50 이범홍(1998). 토의토론 학습과 중등학교 과학교육. 1997년도 교과교육공동연구 결과 보고서(RR 97-II-6). 서울: 한국학술진흥재단
51 Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54   DOI   ScienceOn
52 van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
53 Heisenberg, W. (1982). 부분과 전체 (김용준, 역). 서울: 지식산업사. (원저 1969 발행)
54 Pera, M. (1994). The Discourses of Science (C. Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
55 한국물리교육연구센터(1994). 과학 공동탐구 토론대회 보고서. 서울: 관악사
56 Inch, E. S. & Warnick, B. (2002). Critical thinking and communication: the use of reason in argument. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
57 Surral, C. S., Sunal, D. W., Tirri, K. (2001, April). Using evidence in scientific reasoning: Exploring characteristics of middle school students' argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
58 Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Loughran, J. J., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 45(1), 27-31
59 Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1996). Small group discussions in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114   DOI   ScienceOn
60 Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463   DOI   ScienceOn
61 National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
62 Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381-405   DOI   ScienceOn
63 Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK.: C.U.P.
64 van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a studentgenerated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115-142   DOI   ScienceOn
65 민병곤(2000). 신문사설의 논증 구조 분석. 국어국문학, 127, 133-154
66 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A. & Duschl, R. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792   DOI   ScienceOn
67 Driver, R. & Scott, P. H. (1996). Curriculum Development as Research: A Constructivist Approach to Science Curriculum Development and Teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J.Fraser (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp. 83-106). NY: Teachers College Press
68 Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315   DOI   ScienceOn
69 Wellington, J. J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
70 Dillon, J. T. (1994). Using discussion in classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
71 Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
72 Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142   DOI
73 Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, Science and Learning. Developing Science and Technology Series. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
74 Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science cuniculum. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
75 Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussions in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 393-406   DOI   ScienceOn
76 Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Boston, MA
77 Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27-45   DOI