Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.69

Exploring Teachers' Responsive Teaching Practice in Argumentation-Based Science Classroom: Focus on Structural and Dialogical Aspects of Argument  

Park, Jiyoung (Daeyoung High School)
Kim, Heui-Baik (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.38, no.1, 2018 , pp. 69-85 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore teachers' responsive moves that affect students' argumentation practices, and to propose responsive teaching strategies in argumentation-based science classroom. Two teachers, who have not implemented argumentation in their classes, and 57 students, participated in this study. We recorded and transcribed their classes and interviews for the analysis. According to grounded theory approach, we categorized the teachers' responsive moves as focused on either structural or dialogical aspects of argumentation, and qualitatively analyzed their responsive teaching practices in classes. We discovered that the teachers mostly responded to structural rather than dialogical aspects of argumentation, particularly during the students' small-group discussions. This was mainly due to their instructional goals, which focused on the structural aspect of argumentation, and the limited time available for supporting small-groups. Regarding the structural aspects, those responsive moves that explored the students' thinking or facilitated their reasoning helped them to share their thinking and justify their arguments further with recognition of learning goals in the argumentation activities. Regarding the dialogical aspects, which were seen mostly in whole-class discussions, the moves that underlined similarities and differences between arguments, facilitated the sharing of a small-group's arguments with the entire class, or asked a specific student to evaluate the arguments were notable. These moves supported clarification of various small-groups' arguments, which led to reconstruction of coherent argument through evaluation and rebuttal of these arguments, consequentially facilitating dialogical interactions. Based on these results, we proposed responsive teaching strategies in an argumentation-based science classroom.
Keywords
responsive teaching; scientific argumentation; responsive moves;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The elementary school journal, 93(4), 373-397.   DOI
2 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.   DOI
3 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.   DOI
4 Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. Handbook of discourse processes, 165-197.
5 Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038.   DOI
6 Corbin, J., Strauss, A., & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
7 Damsa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. the journal of the learning sciences, 19(2), 143-186.   DOI
8 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
9 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
10 Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
11 Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.   DOI
12 Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of science, mathematics and ICT education, 6(1), 51-72.
13 Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
14 Gamoran Sherin, M., & Van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37.   DOI
15 Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring Responsive Teaching's Effect on Students' Epistemological Framing in Small Group Argumentation, Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 37(1), 63-75.   DOI
16 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.   DOI
17 Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
18 Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting Preservice Science Teachers' Ability to Attend and Respond to Student Thinking by Design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895.   DOI
19 Kim, S., Lee, S., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring a Teacher's Argumentation-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Identified through Collaborative Reflection and Teaching Practice for Science Argumentation. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 35(6), 1019-1030.   DOI
20 Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation.
21 Lee, J. H. (2016) Understanding of small group students' productive practice in scientific argumentation focusing on the change of epistemological resources network. Seoul National University.
22 Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the coconstruction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464.   DOI
23 Levin, D. M., Grant, T., & Hammer, D. (2012). Attending and responding to student thinking in science. The american biology Teacher, 74(3), 158-162.   DOI
24 Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.   DOI
25 Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. National Science Teachers Association.
26 McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.   DOI
27 McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Katsh‐Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high‐quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261-290.   DOI
28 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.   DOI
29 McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.   DOI
30 Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
31 Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science‐aspractice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516.   DOI
32 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
33 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
34 Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. The University of Texas at Austin.
35 Robertson, A. D., Richards, J., Elby, A., & Walkoe, J. (2015). Documenting Variability Within Teacher Attention and Responsiveness to the Substance of Student Thinking. Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics, 227.