Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.565

Analysis of Epistemic Considerations and Scientific Argumentation Level in Argumentation to Conceptualize the Concept of Natural Selection of Science-Gifted Elementary Students  

Park, Chuljin (Korea National University of Education)
Cha, Heeyoung (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.37, no.4, 2017 , pp. 565-575 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study analyzes the epistemic considerations and the argumentation level revealed in the discourse of the key concept of natural selection for science-gifted elementary students. The paper analyzes and discusses the results of a three-student focus group, drawn from a cohort of twenty gifted sixth-grade elementary students. Nature, generality, justification, and audience were used to analyze epistemic consideration. Learning progression in scientific argumentation including argument construction and critique was used to analyze students' scientific argumentation level. The findings are as follows: First, Epistemic considerations in discourse varied between key concepts of natural selection discussed. The nature aspect of epistemic considerations is highly expressed in the discourse for all natural selection key concepts. But the level of generality, justification and audience was high or low, and the level was not revealed in the discourse. In the heredity of variation, which is highly expressed in terms of generality of knowledge, the linkage with various phenomena against the acquired character generated a variety of ideas. These ideas were used to facilitate engagement in argumentation, so that all three students showed the level of argumentation of suggestions of counter-critique. Second, students tried to explain the process of speciation by using concepts that were high in practical epistemic considerations level when explaining the concept of speciation, which is the final natural selection key concept. Conversely, the concept of low level of epistemic considerations was not included as an explanation factor. The results of this study suggest that students need to analyze specific factors to understand why epistemological decisions are made by students and how epistemological resources are used according to context through various epistemological resources. Analysis of various factors influencing epistemological decisions can be a mediator of the instructor who can improve the quality and level of the argumentation.
Keywords
scientific argumentation; argumentation level; epistemic consideration; natural selection;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ohlsson, S. & Bee, N. V. (1992) The effect of expository text on children's explanations of biological evolution. OERI Report. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
2 Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
3 Park, C., & Cha, H. (2016). Analyzing the effectiveness of argumentation program to conceptualize natural selection concept for the elementary science gifted students. Journal of Korean Association for science education, 36(4), 591-606.   DOI
4 Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.   DOI
5 Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2010). Generate an argument: an instructional Model. Science Teacher, 77(5), 32-37.
6 Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.   DOI
7 Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8 Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9 Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(02), 57-74.   DOI
10 Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141-167.   DOI
11 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
12 Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform.
13 Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.   DOI
14 Kwon, J., & Kim, H. (2016). Exploring small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment : Focusing on Students' Epistemic Goals and Epistemic Consideration for Activities. Journal of Korean Association for science education, 36(1), 45-61.   DOI
15 Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D.,&Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 57-68.   DOI
16 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, 33(4), 840-862.   DOI
17 Berland, L., & Crucet, K. (2016). Epistemological Trade-Offs: Accounting for Context When Evaluating Epistemological Sophistication of Student Engagement in Scientific Practices. Science Education, 100(1), 5-29.   DOI
18 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.   DOI
19 Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112.   DOI
20 Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.   DOI
21 Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education,
22 Board on Science Education. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
23 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
24 Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291.   DOI
25 Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.   DOI
26 Furtak (2012). Linking Progression for Natural Selection to Teachers' Enactment of Formative Assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1181-1220.
27 Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28 Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90.   DOI
29 Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of educational research, 67(1), 88-140.   DOI
30 Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2006). Young children's conception of the biological world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 177-181.   DOI
31 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education, 77(3), 319-337.   DOI