Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2006.26.5.620

Claim-Evidence Approach for the Opportunity of Scientific Argumentation  

Park, Young-Shin (Research Center on Gifted and Talented Education Korean Development Educational Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.26, no.5, 2006 , pp. 620-636 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze one science teacher's understanding of student argumentation and his explicit teaching strategies for implementing it in the classroom. One middle school science teacher, Mr. Field, and his students of 54 participated in this study. Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews, 60 hours of classroom observations, and two times of students' lab reports for eight weeks. Coding categories were developed describing the teacher's understanding of scientific argumentation and a description of the main teaching strategy, the Claim-Evidence Approach, was introduced. Toulmin's approach was employed to analyze student discourse as responses to see how much of this discourse was argumentative. The results indicated that Mr. Field defined scientific inquiry as the abilities of procedural skills through experimentation and of reasoning skills through argumentation. The Claim-Evidence Approach provided students with opportunities to develop their own claims based on their readings, design the investigation for evidence, and differentiate pieces of evidence from data to support their claims and refute others. During this approach, the teacher's role of scaffolding was critical to shift students' less extensive argumentation to more extensive argumentation through his prompts and questions. The different level of teacher's involvement, his explicit teaching strategy, and the students' scientific knowledge influenced the students' ability to develop and improve argumentation.
Keywords
Claim-Evidence Approach; Scientific argumentation; Procedural skill; Reasoning skill; Scientific inquiry; Scientific literacy; Toulmin's approach;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Kahan, P. (2000). Science explorer: Motion, forces, and energy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
5 Klahr, D., & Kotovsky, L. (1989). Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
6 Krajcik, K., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial Attempts by middles students. The Journal of the Learning Science, 7 (3 & 4), 313-350   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689   DOI   ScienceOn
8 National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
9 Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1996). The challenges of instructional scaffolding: The challenges of instruction that supports student thinking. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11 (3), 138-146
10 Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small -group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179-199   DOI   ScienceOn
12 National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
13 Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego: Academic Press, INC
14 Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535-555   DOI
15 Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr & L. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109-143). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
16 Kuim, D. (1986). Education for thinking. Teachers College Record, 87(4), 495-511
17 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Lemke, A. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
19 Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press
20 Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237-258   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Yenrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838   DOI   ScienceOn