Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0079

Issues and Effects in Developing Inquiry-Based Argumentation Task for Science Teachers: A Case of Charles' Law Experiment  

Baek, Jongho (Seoul National University)
Jeong, Dae Hong (Seoul National University)
Hwang, Seyoung (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.34, no.2, 2014 , pp. 79-92 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to develop an inquiry-based argumentation task for use in science teachers' professional development by providing them with the substantial experience of argumentation. To do so, the study has developed an argumentation task by utilizing the experiment on the Charles' Law of gas and revised by applying to eight teachers three times. We have revised the questions by analyzing three issues that have been revealed throughout this process in ways that facilitated teachers' argumentation. The effects of revision have been confirmed by the improvements in teachers' argumentation pattern. Three issues have been identified in developing argumentation tasks for science teachers' professional development and they are as follows: determining the openness of the structure of a question, achieving cognitive conflict and convergence of opinions at the same time, and ways of utilizing various evidence. As the task has been revised in ways that enabled scientific approach to the inquiry topic and facilitated the convergence of various opinions, the participants' argumentation patterns have improved both quantitatively and qualitatively. Meanwhile, the inclusion of an actual experiment has not influence their argumentation, while the observation of experimental data has been used as the core evidence according to the character of the problem. Based on the study's result, we suggest practical implications for developing argumentation tasks for science teachers in more varying contexts.
Keywords
argumentation; scientific inquiry; teacher professional development program; instructional support;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 9  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Yoo, J., Kim, H. B., Cho, Y., Hwang, S., Park, J. Y., Ohno, E., Asakawa, K., Lee, D. W., & Lim, E. H. (2012). Design-based research for teacher professional development program on scientific argumentation. Paper presented at the World Conference on Physics Education.
2 Yun, S.-M., & Kim, H.-B. (2011). Development and application of the scientific inquiry task for small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 694-708.
3 Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Shin, H.-S., & Kim, H.-J. (2011). The gifted students' view on argumentation and the aspects of the argumentation in problem-solving type experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(4), 567-586.   과학기술학회마을
8 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
9 Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669-688.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371.   DOI
11 Watson, J., Swain, J., & Mcrobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers' Pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972.
14 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
15 Millar, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public understanding of science, 7(3), 203-223.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 National Research Council(NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national standards in science education. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
17 Nersessian, N. (1995). Should physicists preach whet they practice? Science and Education, 4(3), 203-226.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Park, J., Chang, B., Yoon, H., & Pak, S. J. (1993). Middle school student's evidence evaluation about light and shadow. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 13(2), 135-145.
19 Park, Y.-S. (2006). Claim-evidence approach for the opportunity of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(5), 620-636.   과학기술학회마을
20 Park, Y.-S. (2008). Analyzing science teachers' understanding about scientific argumentation in terms of scientific inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(3), 211-226.
21 Park, Y.-S. (2010). Exploring scientific argumentation from teacher-student interaction with epistemological and psychological perspectives. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 31(1), 106-117.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Sadler, T. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.   DOI
23 Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446.   DOI
26 Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234.   과학기술학회마을
27 Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28 Lee, H., Cho, H., & Sohn, J. (2009). The teachers' view on using argumentation in school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(6), 666-679.   과학기술학회마을
29 Lee, S.-K., Lee, G., Choi, C. I., & Shin, M.-K. (2012). Analyzing coordination of theory and evidence presented in pre-service elementary teachers' science writing for inquiry activity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(2), 201-209.   과학기술학회마을
30 Maeng, S., Park, Y.-S., & Kim, C.-J. (2013). Methodological review of the research on argumentative discourse focused on analyzing collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 840-862.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
32 Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Thomas, L., Seibert, D., & Tron, M. (2003). Online process scaffolding and students' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. A paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
33 Bransky, J., Hadass, R., & Lubezky, A. (1992). Reasoning fallacies in preservice elementary school teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10(1), 83-92.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: Springer.
36 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
37 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munaz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change while working on a real environment problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijklhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 419-431). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
39 Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.