Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2009.29.2.203

The Development of Rubrics to Assess Scientific Argumentation  

Yang, Il-Ho (Korea National University of Education)
Lee, Hyo-Jeong (Korea National University of Education)
Lee, Hyo-Nyong (Kyungpook National University)
Cho, Hyun-Jun (KAIST Institute for Gifted Students)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.29, no.2, 2009 , pp. 203-220 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a rubric for assessing students' scientific argumentation. Through the analysis of relevant literature related to argument in science education for developing rubric, the procedure in development and the category in assessment for rubric were elicited. According to the general procedure in developing rubric, the standard for evaluating the argumentation derived three categories such as a form, contents, and attitude. The form category was further segmented into sub-functions composition, claim, ground, and conclusion in the whole. The category for contents was segmented into sub-functions understanding, credibility, and inference. And the category for attitude was set to sub-functions participatory level and openness. The standard for evaluating sub-functions in each of the categories formed in this way was minutely suggested with five stages. The rubric, which was developed on the basis of literature, was inspected through a regular seminar in one expert in science education and fellow researchers. The rubric, which was developed in the early days, was again modified by being verified on problem and improvement matter after being entrusted to four experts in scientific education. And, the finally-completed rubric indicated to be high with 0.96 in the content validity index by being verified the validity by the four experts in science education. The developed rubric will lead to being able to increase the understanding about demonstration in students, and to being available for being utilized as the criteria for developing the argumentation process program and for evaluating the argumentation activity.
Keywords
scientific argumentation; assessment; rubric; analysis category;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의 과정을 강조한 교수 학습 전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의 과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회, 26(3), 450-461
2 Arter, J. (2000). Rubrics, scoring guides, and performance criteria: Classroom tools for assessing and improving student learning. paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association. ERIC Document Reproduction Service Mo. ED446100
3 Banta, T. W., Lund, J. P., Black, K. E., & Oblander, F. W. (1996). Assessment in practice: Putting principles to work on college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
4 Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science, 29, 443 479   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Goodrich, H. (1996). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 14-17   ScienceOn
6 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrigueze, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in high school genetics. London: John Wiley & Sons
7 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skills among finish universitym students. Learning and Instruction, 4, 175-191   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2): 13-23   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70   ScienceOn
12 Zimmaro, D. M. (2004). Developing grading rubrics. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/academic/mec/research/pdf/rubricshandou t.pdf
13 Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481 518   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, T. J. (2001). BGUILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263 305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
15 Siegel, M. A., Hynds, S., Siciliano, M., & Nagle, B. (2006). Chapter 7. Using rubrics to foster meaningful learning. In McMahon, M., Simmons, P., Sommers, R., Debates, D., & Crawley, F. (Ed.) Assessment in Science. (pp. 89-106). Arlington: NSTA press
16 Andrews, R., Costello, P., & Clarke, S. (1993). Improving the quality of argument 5-16: Final Report. Hull, UK: Esmee Fairbairn Charitable Trust/University of Hull
17 Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Researcher in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020   DOI   ScienceOn
18 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   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10)
21 Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915 933   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Aufscjnaiter, C. V., 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   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. G. (2000). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368   ScienceOn
24 Veerman. A., Andriessen. J., & Kanselaar. G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education, Instructional Science, 30, 155-186   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Waltman, K., Kahn, A., & Koency, G. (1998). Alternative approaches to scoring: The effect of using different scoring methods on the validity of scores from a performance assessment. CSE Technical Report 488. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
26 Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Kanselaar, G., Erkens, G., Andriessne, J., Prangsma, M., Veerman, A., & Jaspers, J. (2002). Designing argumentation tools fro collaborative learning. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham-Shum & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualising argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making. (pp. 51-73). London: Springer
29 Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Mitchell, S. (2001). What is this thing called argument? In R. Andrews & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Essays in argument. London: Middlesex University Press
31 Perella, J. (1987). The debate method of critical thinking: An introduction to argumentation. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hun
32 Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17-39   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2003). Scaffolding preservice teachers' evidencebased arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
35 McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing: Knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62-76
36 McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In Lovett, M. & Shah, P. (Eds.) Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc
37 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
38 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   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Felton, M. K., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents' perspective writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 672-683
40 Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: a rhetoricalsemantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006). Personally -seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277   DOI   ScienceOn
44 Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576   DOI   ScienceOn
45 Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227-260). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer
46 O'Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1998). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
47 이범홍 (1998). 토의 토론 학습과 중등학교 과학 교육. 1997년도 교과교육공동연구 결과보고서 (RR97-Ⅱ-6), 서울: 한국 학술 진흥 재단
48 Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacherguided discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432   DOI   ScienceOn
49 Takao, A. Y., Prothero, W. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2002). Applying argumentation analysis to assess the quality of university oceanography students' scientific writing. Journal of Geoscience Education, 5(1), 40-48   DOI
50 Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291-314   DOI   ScienceOn
51 Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111   DOI   ScienceOn
52 McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Science, 15(2), 153-191   DOI   ScienceOn
53 Herman, J. I., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, I. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 김경자(역) (2000). 수행평가 과제 제작의 원리와 실재. 서울: 이화여자대학교 출판부
54 Carr, J.F., & Harris, D.E. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum, assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development
55 Davis, L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197   DOI
56 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312   DOI   ScienceOn
57 Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition And Instruction, 23(1), 23-55   DOI   ScienceOn
58 Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan
59 Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342   DOI   ScienceOn
60 Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J.(2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the Science Classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260   DOI   ScienceOn
61 Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
62 Schafer, W. D., Swanson, G., Bene, N., & Newberry, G. (2001). Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content area. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 151-170   DOI   ScienceOn
63 Van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with reasonable. Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85-90
64 Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38(6). 663-687   DOI   ScienceOn