Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0583

The Impact of the Argument-based Modeling Strategy using Scientific Writing implemented in Middle School Science  

Cho, Hey Sook (Pusan National University)
Nam, Jeonghee (Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.34, no.6, 2014 , pp. 583-592 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing on student's modeling ability. For this study, 66 students (three classes) from the 7th grade were selected and of these, 43 students (two classes) were assigned to two experimental groups while the other 23 students (one class) were assigned to comparative group. In the experimental groups, one group (22 students) was Argument-based multimodal Representation and Modeling (AbRM), and the other group (21 students) was Argument-based Modeling (AbM). Modeling ability consisted of identifying the problem, structuring of scientific concepts, adequacy of claim and evidence and index of multimodal representation. As for the modeling ability, AbRM group scored significantly higher than the other groups, AbM group was significantly higher than comparative group. The four sub-elements of modeling ability in the AbRM group was significantly higher than the other groups statistically and AbM group scored significantly higher than comparative group. From these results, the argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing was effective on students' modeling ability. Students organized or expressed the model and evaluated or modified it through the process of argument-based modeling using scientific writing and the exchange of opinions with others by scientific language as argument and writing.
Keywords
model; modeling; Argument-based Modeling(AbM); multimodal representation; writing; argumentation;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Windschitl M., Thompson J., & Braaten M., (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-Based Inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Nam, J. H., Kwak, K. H., Jang, K. H., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.   과학기술학회마을
4 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
5 Owens, C. V. (2000). Teachers' responses to science writing. Teaching and learning-grand forks-, 15(1), 22-35.
6 Pineda, L., & Garza, G. (2000). A model for multimodal reference resolution. Computational Linguistics, 26(2), 139-193.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Romberg, T., Carpenter, T., & Kwako, J. (2005). Standards based reform and teaching for understanding. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8 Sarah, K. B., & Lance, J. R. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24(4), 573-604.   DOI
9 Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for science modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Seigel, H. (1988). Education reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. London: Routledge.
11 Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695-1721.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Suckling, C. J., Suckling, K. E., & Suckling, C. W. (1978). Chemistry through models. Concepts and applications of modeling in chemical science, technology and industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13 Kelly, G. J., Bazerman, C., Skukauakaite, A., & Prothero, W. (2002). Rhetorical features of student science writing in introductory university oceanography (pp. 265-282). Routledge, NY: New York Publisher.
14 Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Laubichler, M. & Muuller, G. (2007). Modeling biology: structures, behaviors, evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
16 Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-880). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher.
17 Lee, K. N. (2007). Effects of constructivistic learning strategy on middle school students' learning of scientific conception learning and scientific attitudes: Focused on science writing (Doctoral dissertation). Chonbuk National University, Korea.
18 Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, (6th ed., Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
19 Magnani, L., & Nersessian, N. (2002). Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20 Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on of science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
21 Ministry Of Education. (2012). 2009 Revised national curriculum. MOE, Notice No. 2011-2361.
22 Morgan, M., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23 Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school science students: A Project SEPIA evaluation. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Boston.
24 Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of Physics. Science Education, 85(6), 106-121.
25 Giere, R., Bickle, J., & Mauldin, R. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning. London: Thomson Learning.
26 Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. Developing Models in Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
27 Haack, S. (2003). Defending science-within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
28 Halloun, I. A. (1996). Schematic Modeling for meaningful learning of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1-26.
29 Hand, B., Choi, A., Greenbowe, T., Schroeder, J., & Bennett, W. (2008). Examining the impact of student use of multiple-mode representations in constructing science arguments. annual international conference of national association for research in science teaching. Baltimore, MD.
30 Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Kang, I. A. (1997). A brief reflection on cognitive and social constructivism. Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2). 3-20.
32 Kelly, G. J., & Takao A. (2001). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
33 Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what the know. Boston, MA: Harvard business school press.
34 Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10-16.
35 Lee, J. S. (2002). Principles and methods of teaching writing; Process-oriented approach. Seoul: Teaching the history of science Publishers.