Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.604

Theoretical Considerations on Analytical Framework Design for the Interactions between Participants in Group Argumentation on Socio-Scientific Issues  

Park, Jee-Young (Seoul National University)
Kim, Heui-Baik (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.32, no.4, 2012 , pp. 604-624 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to design a framework for analyzing group argumentation in terms of participants' interaction. Regarding the current group argumentation setting as argumentation on socio-scientific issues within participants who have had limited experience on group argumentation, the analytical framework was designed to explain (1) what was each participant's role on group argumentation, (2) how these roles were changed within each time of argumentation, and (3) how the patterns of interaction were changed through seven times of a series of argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Based on the literature review on analytical framework of argumentation in science education including the works on the structure of argumentation, the discourse formation through interaction, and the linguistic approach on participants' interaction, the current research framework was built. Showing the results of applying the designed framework on group argumentation as an example, strength of using the current designed framework was discussed.
Keywords
argumentation on socio-scientific issues; analytical framework on argumentation; interaction between participants; IRE triadic; RF chain; Toulmin's Argumentation Pattern;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 김희경, 송진웅(2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1216-1234.
2 도승이(2005). 교실 토론상황에서 학생의 감정, 인지, 행동의 상호작용: 근거이론 분석법을 통한 모델을 중심으로. 교육심리연구, 19(1), 17-39.
3 박인옥, 박지영, 조은희, 소경희, 김희백(2005a). 생명윤리와 생명윤리교육에 대한 초등학교 교사의 인식 조사. 한국초등과학교육학회지, 24(5), 571-582.
4 박인옥, 박지영, 조은희, 소경희, 김희백(2005b). 생명윤리와 생명윤리교육에 대한 중.고등학교 교사의 인식 조사. 한국생물교육학회지, 33(4), 491-504.
5 박지영, 김희백(2011). 초등 예비교사의 사회 속의 과학 쟁점에 대한 논변에서 나타나는 소집단 상호작용 분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 39(4), 653-673.
6 박지영, 김희백, 소경희, 조은희(2005). 교과서에 제시된 생명윤리교육 실태 -'국어', '도덕', '사회', '과학',' 기술.가정'교과를 중심으로-. 교육과정평가연구, 8(2), 151-174.
7 위수민, 조현준, 김선홍, 이효녕(2009). 학생 특성에 따른 소그룹 논증 수준 분석. 과학교육연구지. 33(1). 1-11.
8 이현주, 장현숙(2007). 과학과 관련된 사회적, 윤리적 문제 도입 측면에서의 미국 주별 과학과 교육과 정과 중등 과학교사의 인식 탐색. 교육과정평가연구, 10(1), 189-209.
9 정희모(2006). 글쓰기 교육과 협력학습. 삼일.
10 조영달(2001). 한국 중등학교 교실수업의 이해. 교육과학사.
11 Abd-El-Khalick. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classroom. In D. Zeidler, (ed.) The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
12 Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. New York: Teachers College Press.
13 Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A. & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Badreddine, Z., & Buty, C. (2011). Discursive Reconstruction of the Scientific Story in a Teaching Sequence. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 773-795.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler, (Ed.). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117-138). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17 Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Campbell, B., Kaunda, L., Allie, S., Buffler, A. & Lubben, F. (2000). The communication of laboratory investigations by university entrants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 839-853.   DOI
20 Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos' Scientific Research Programmes as a Framework for Analysing Informal Argumentation about Socioscientific Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qualitative method for advancing social justice research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22 Crawford, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (1999). Elements of a community of learners in a middle-school science classroom. Science Education, 83, 701-723.   DOI
23 Duschl, R. A., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2008). Introduction to special issue: Science studies and science education. Science Education, 92(3), 385- 388.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions. (pp. 3-28). New York: Springer.
25 Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2011). Trends in Research on Argumentation: Content Analysis of Science Education Journals, Orlando, Florida, USA.
26 Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge, London.
27 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, 99, 915-933.
28 Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 35-52.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153.   DOI
30 Ha, E., & Song, J. (2009). Patterns of linguistic communication in teaching and learning science: a case study of Korean middle school science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 31-2, 173-192.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: Undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1249-1268.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students' collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085-1109.   DOI
33 Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of science education, 29(11), 1347-1362.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.   DOI
35 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, A. R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.   DOI
36 Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns in children's collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16: 333-370.   DOI   ScienceOn
37 Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38 Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Lakatos, I. (1978) Anomalies versus 'crucial experiments.' In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), Imre Lakatos: Philosophical papers. vol. II: Mathematics, science and epistemology (pp. 211-223). New York: Cambridge University Press.
40 Layton, D., Jenkins, E., MacGill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate Science Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education. Driffield: Studies in Education.
41 Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224.   DOI   ScienceOn
42 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
43 McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education. 93(2), 233-268.   DOI   ScienceOn
44 McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain specific and domain general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.   DOI   ScienceOn
45 McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.
46 Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
47 Mercer, N. (2008). The Seeds of Time: Why Classroom Dialogue Needs a Temporal Analysis, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33-59.   DOI   ScienceOn
48 Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classroom. Maidenhead - Philadelhia: Open university Press.
49 Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students reasoning practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3) 443-488.   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.   DOI   ScienceOn
51 Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59-92.   DOI   ScienceOn
52 Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborative in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658.   DOI   ScienceOn
53 Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI   ScienceOn
54 Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4). 접속일 2008년 9월 15일, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html
55 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
56 Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman, (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57 S-TEAM (Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods) (2010). Report on argumentation and teacher education in Europe. Trondheim, S-TEAM/NTNU.
58 Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (5), 513-536.   DOI   ScienceOn
59 Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-397.   DOI
60 Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463-1488.   DOI   ScienceOn
61 Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.   DOI   ScienceOn
62 Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.   DOI   ScienceOn
63 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
64 Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631.   DOI   ScienceOn
65 Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 137-162.
66 Simon, S. & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5) 669-688.   DOI   ScienceOn
67 Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research.(pp.179-199) Dordrecht: Springer.
68 Soong, B., & Mercer, N. (2011). Improving Students' Revision of Physics Concepts through ICT. Based Co-construction and Prescriptive Tutoring. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1055-1078.   DOI   ScienceOn
69 Tao, P. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students' understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171.   DOI
70 Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
71 van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
72 Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge (Updated Ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
73 Varelas, M., Pappas, C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: urban second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (7), 637-666.   DOI   ScienceOn
74 von Aufschnaiter, C., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & 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
75 Waggoner, C. A. Yi, C. H., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Collaborative Reasoning about stories. Language Arts, 72, 582 589.
76 Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: an argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 745-777.   DOI   ScienceOn
77 Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807-838.   DOI
78 Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719.   DOI   ScienceOn
79 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.   DOI   ScienceOn