Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0919

Analysis on the Argumentation Pattern and Level of Students' Mental Models in Modeling-based Learning about Geologic Structures  

Park, Su-Kyeong (Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.35, no.5, 2015 , pp. 919-929 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to develop a modeling-based learning program about geologic structures and to reveal the relationship between the argumentation patterns and levels of students' mental models. Participants included 126 second grade high school students in four sessions of modeling-based learning regarding continental drift, oceanic ridges, transform faults, and characteristics of faults. A modeling-based learning program was implemented in two classes of the experimental group, and teacher-centered traditional classes were carried out for the other students in the comparison group. Science achievement scores and the distribution of students' mental models in experimental and comparison groups were quantitatively compared. The video-taped transcripts of five teams' argumentation were qualitatively analyzed based on the analytic framework developed in the study. The analytic framework for coding students' argumentation in the modeling-based learning was composed of five components of TAP and the corresponding components containing alternative concepts. The results suggest that the frequencies of causal two-dimensional model and cubic model were high in the experimental group, while the frequencies of simple two-dimensional model and simple cross sectional model were high in the comparison group. The higher the frequency of claims, an argumentation pattern was proven successful, and the level of mental model was higher. After the rebuttal was suggested, students observed the model again and claimed again according to new data. Therefore, the model could be confirmed as having a positive impact on students' argumentation process.
Keywords
modeling-based learning; argumentation pattern; mental model; geologic structures;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 6  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Park, S. (2013). The relationship between students' perception of the scientific models and their alternative conceptions of the lunar phases. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(3), 285-298.   DOI
2 Park, S., & Oh, J. (2013). Learners' ontological categories according to their mental models of plate boundaries. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(2), 17-34.
3 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4 Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Samarapungavan, A., Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1996). Mental models of the Earth, Sun, and Moon: Indian children's cosmologies. Cognitive Development, 11(5), 491-521.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 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
7 Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720-744.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Schwarz, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Keynon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Schwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Shin, H., & Kim, H. (2011). 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.
11 Shin, H., & Kim, H. (2012). Development of the analytic framework for dialogic argumentation using the TAP and a diagram in the context of learning the circular motion. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 1007-1026.   DOI
12 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), 235-260.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14 Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research; State of the art and future direction. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, and M. Carretero(Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change, (pp. 3-13). New York, NY:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15 Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16 Watson, J., Swain, J. R., & Mcrobbie, C. (2004). Students'discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Barnett, M., & Morran, J. (2002). Addressing children's alternative frameworks of the Moon's phases and eclipses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 859-879.   DOI
18 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), 291-314.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Yun, S., & Kim H. (2011), Development and application of the scientific inquiry tasks for small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 694-708.
20 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
21 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
22 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation, Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 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
24 Clement, J. J. (2000). Model-based learning as a key research area of science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.   DOI
25 Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Duschl, R.A. (2008). Quality of argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp.159-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
27 Coll, R., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183-198.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers' conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379-1401.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Driver, R. A., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
30 Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J., (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.   DOI
31 Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of science classroom argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
32 Erduran, S., Ardac, D. & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Promoting argumentation in pre-service teacher education in Science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
33 Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2005). Developing arguments. In, S. Alsop, L. Bencze., & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice, (pp. 106-115). London, UK: Open University Press.
34 Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83-97.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 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
36 Franco, C. & Colinvaux, D. (2000). Grasping mental models. In J. Gilbert and C. Boulter(Eds.), Developing models in science education, (pp. 93-118). New York, NY:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37 Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education, (pp.3-17). New York, NY:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38 Gilbert, S. W., & Ireton, S. W. (2003). Understanding models in earth and space science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
39 Gobert, J. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on model-building in plate tectonics: Diagramming versus explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 444-455.   DOI
40 Gobert, J. D. & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.   DOI
41 Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-11.   DOI
42 Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7), 665-697.
43 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodrigues, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.   DOI
44 Han, H., Lee, T., Ko, H., Lee, S., Kim, E., Choe, S., & Kim, C. (2012). An analysis of the type of rebuttal in argumentation among science-gifted student. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 717-728.   DOI
45 Hogan, K., & Maglenti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinning of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 668-687.
46 Jang, E., Ko, W., & Kang, S. (2012). The analysis of university student's modeling patterns and perceptions through modeling experiments. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(1), 1-14   DOI
47 Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48 Kang, S., Kwak, K., & Nam, J. (2006). The effects of argumentation-based teaching and learning strategy on cognitive development, science concept understanding, science-related attitude, and argumentation in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(3), 450-461.
49 Kang, N., & Lee, E. (2013). Argument and argumentation: A Review ofliterature for clarification of translated words. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(6), 1119-1138.   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.   DOI   ScienceOn
51 Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.   DOI   ScienceOn
52 Maeng, S., Park, Y., & Kim, C. (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, 31(5), 733-744.
53 Lee, H., Cho, H., & Son, J. (2009). The teachers' view on using argumentation in school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(6), 666-679.
54 Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy: Supporting developmentin learning in context. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, (pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
55 Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S., Dahl, J., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students' ideas about the earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17-26.   DOI
56 Oh, P., & Oh, S. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130.   DOI   ScienceOn
57 Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI   ScienceOn
58 Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(1), 63-70.
59 Park, S. (2009). An analysis of high school students' mental models on the plate boundaries. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 30(1), 111-126.   DOI   ScienceOn
60 Park, S. (2011). An analysis of the mental models of middle school students with different learning style on plate tectonics. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 733-744.