Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.840

Methodological Review of the Research on Argumentative Discourse Focused on Analyzing Collaborative Construction and Epistemic Enactments of Argumentation  

Maeng, Seungho (Kangwon National University)
Park, Young-Shin (Chosun University)
Kim, Chan-Jong (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.33, no.4, 2013 , pp. 840-862 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin's argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin's argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants' collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMEs and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the flow of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.
Keywords
Argumentative discourse; collaborative construction of arguments; epistemic enactment; discourse register; Evidence-Explanation Continuum; DREEC;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의과정을 강조한 교수.학습전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 450-461.
2 김희경, 송진웅 (2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형의 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지,24(6), 1216-1234.
3 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Hand, B. (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),922-936.
4 맹승호, 신명환, 차현정, 함석진, 신현정, 김찬종(2010). 지구과학 논문의 언어 특성 이해: 레지스터 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 31(7), 785-797.
5 박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증 기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국지구과학회지, 27(4), 401-415.
6 양일호, 이효정, 이효녕, 조현준 (2009). 과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 203-220.
7 이선경, 이선경, 김찬종, 김희백 (2005). 비형식적 과학 학습 자료의 시나리오 및 논증 구조: 영국 자연사박물관의 공룡관의 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(7),849-866.
8 이은경, 강성주 (2008). 학생-학생 언어적 상호작용분석을 통한 문제 해결형 탐구 모듈에서의 SWH 활용 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 130-138.
9 이정아, 맹승호, 김찬종 (2008). 과학수업담화의 새로운 독법: 교수학적 담화분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),832-847.
10 이주연, 이정아, 김찬종 (2010). 자연사 박물관에서 관람객의 학습을 중재하는 도슨트의 담화 특성에 대한 사례연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(6), 815-835.
11 차현정, 김찬종, 맹승호 (2011). 장르와 레지스터 분석에서 나타난 중학생의 지구과학 주제 글쓰기의 언어적 특징. 한국지구과학회지, 32(1), 84-98.
12 최문영, 맹승호, 박은지, 정원영, 김찬종 (2012). 관람대화의 흐름과 상호작용의 양상에 기반한 자연사 전시관의 전시물과 관람객 간 상호작용적 학습 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(7), 1251-1268.
13 Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc. On behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.
14 Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-ellaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities'adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. New York, NY: Continuum.
18 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 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, 293-321.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374.   DOI
21 Duschl, R. A. (2003a). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Arlingon, VA: NSTA Press.
22 Duschl, R. A. (2003b). The assessment of argumentation and explanation: Creating and supporting teachers'feedback strategies. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 139-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
23 Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
24 Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.
26 Erduran, S., & Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspective from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
27 Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London, UK: Continuum.
28 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
29 Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Amold.
32 Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson"or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
34 Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915.   DOI
35 Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world. (pp. 145-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36 Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students'scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.   DOI
37 Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. , 86, 314-342.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137-157). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
40 Maeng, S., & Kim, C-J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students'pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95(3), 431-457.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
42 National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington DC: National Academy Press.
43 National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Washington DC:National Academy Press.
44 Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 17-37). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
45 Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46 Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.   DOI   ScienceOn
47 Resnick, L. B., Saljo, R., Pontecorvo, C., & Burge, B. (1997). Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
48 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education:Current perspectives and recommendations for future direction. Science Education, 92, 447-472.   DOI   ScienceOn
49 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.
50 van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51 Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.   DOI   ScienceOn