Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.1007

Development of the Analytic Framework for Dialogic Argumentation Using the TAP and a Diagram in the Context of Learning the Circular Motion  

Shin, Ho Sim (Korea National University of Education)
Kim, Hyun-Joo (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.32, no.5, 2012 , pp. 1007-1026 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop analytic framework for dialogic argumentation to show the context and flow visualizing interactions of argumentation, to be able to present quality of argumentation specifically. For this, we formulated a method of the argumentation diagram using feature of diagram simple and structurally visualizing interrelation between argument components, and then quantified quality of argumentation to argument level score on this basis. We have developed the learning material for argumentation about a vertical circular motion and used the obtained translations from applying it in developing the framework. We chose argument statements among full transcript and then coded as Toulmin's argument components, and these codes was effectively arranged and linked to show argumentation diagram. Results by argumentation diagram could be useful understanding of interactive argumentation context and the flow and present frequency, the combination of argument elements, rough qualitative level of argumentation. To quantify argumentation quality, we gave different scores to different link lines reflecting indication of argumentation quality like that diversity of argument component, justification, presence or absence of rebuttals. The process of identification of argument level is very simple, qualitative level of argumentation represented as concrete score could present various and concrete argument level. Developed analytic framework might contribute to argumentation research field, because it can present effectively dialogic argumentation result. Also, various analysis cases might guide designing an effective argumentation practice and circular motion learning.
Keywords
Argumentation; Toulmin's Argument Pattern(TAP); Analytic Framework; Argumentation Diagram; Argument Level Score;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students'knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 689-725.
2 Leitao, S. (2007). Arguing and learning. In J. Valsiner, C. Lightfoot, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Advances in cultural psychology Constructing human development: Vol. 2, Challenges and strategies for studying human development in cultural contexts. Greenwich, CT: InfoAge (in press).
3 Leff, H. S. (2002). Acceleration for circular motion. American Journal of Physics, 70(5), 490-492.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussion of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Education Researcher.
6 National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.
7 National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science, technology, society: Science education for the 1980's. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
8 Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, L. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.   DOI
9 Osborne, L., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (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
11 Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13 Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14 Verlinden, J. (2005), Critical Thinking and Everyday Argument. Belmont: Wadworth/Thomson Learning.
15 Von Aufschnaiter, C., 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
16 Walton, D, N. (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Savage: Row man and Little field.
17 Warren, J. W. (1971). Circular motion, Physics Education, 6(2), 74-78.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. San diego, CA: Academic Press.
19 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
20 조현준, 양일호, 송윤미, 이효녕 (2008). 초등과학 영재의 논증활동에서 사용된 증거의 수준 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(5), 495-505.
21 American Association for the advancement of science, Benchmarks for science literacy (1993): A tool for curriculum. Oxford University Press.
22 Berland, l., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualization of argumentation from science studies and learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The Structure of discussions that Promote Reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
25 Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Environments to Relate Structure, Grounds, and Conceptual Quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments. Educational Psychol Rev. 19, 343-374.   DOI
27 Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting og National Association for Research in science Teaching(Boston, MA, March 28-31, 1999). Full text from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/conference/duschletal/duschlrta;.html.
28 Hogan, K., & Maglenti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinning of students'and scientists'reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
30 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, 915-933.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munaz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change while working on a real environment problem. In L. Boersma, M Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijklhof(Eds.), Research and quality of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
32 Kelly, G., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Student's reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.   DOI
34 Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 교육과학기술부 (2009). 고등학교 과학과 교육과정 해설서.
36 강순민 (2004). 과학적 맥락의 논의 과제 해결 과정에서 나타나는 논의과정요소의 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문.
37 강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의과정을 강조한 교수 학습 전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 456-461.
38 곽경화, 남정희 (2009). 과학적 논의과정 활동을 통한 학생들의 논의과정 변화 및 논의상황에 따른 논의과정 특성. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(4), 400-413.
39 박지연, 이경호, 신종호, 송상호 (2006). 과학수업 후 변하는 것과 변하지 않는 것: 정신모형 이론을 중심으로 한 고등학생의 원운동 개념변화 사례 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(4), 475-491.
40 박지연, 이경호 (2008). 통합적 정신모형 이론에 기반한 4M 순환학습 수업모형의 효과: 고등학생의 원운동관련 기초개념과 정신모형의 발달 측면에서. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(4), 302-315.
41 송진웅, 김익균, 김영민, 군성기, 오원근, 박종원 (2004). 학생의 물리 오개념 지도. 서울: 북스힐.
42 교육과학기술부 (2009). 2009 개정교육과정에 따른 중 고등학교 교육과정 해설 총론.
43 신호심, 김현주 (2011). 문제해결형 탐구실험에서 나타난 영재학생들의 논의 양상 및 논의활동에 대한 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 31(4), 567-586.
44 오진아, 이선경, 김찬종 (2008). 지구과학 MBL 수업의 과학 탐구와 논의적 의사소통에 관한 사례연구. 한국지구과학교육학회지, 29(2), 189-203.
45 위수민, 조현준, 김선홍, 이효녕 (2009). 학생 특성에 따른 소그룹 논증 수준 분석, 과학교육연구지, 33(1), 1-11.
46 이경호 (2007). 왜 학생들은 물리학을 어려워하는가?: 지식 신념틀을 이용한 물리학습의 어려움에 대한 구조적 분석을 향하여. 새물리, 54(4), 284-295.
47 이주현, 송진웅 (2006). 원심력에 관한 대학생들의 이해 유형 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(4), 132-142.
48 이하룡, 남경희, 문성배, 김용권, 이석희 (2005). 논의과정 활용 수업이 초등학생의 학습 동기화 과학 태도에 미치는 영향. 초등과학교육, 24(2), 183-191.
49 이효녕, 조현준, 손정주 (2009). 학교과학교육에서의 논증활동 활용에 대한 교사들의 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(6), 666-679.