Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.219

Exploratory Research on Automating the Analysis of Scientific Argumentation Using Machine Learning  

Lee, Gyeong-Geon (Seoul National University)
Ha, Heesoo (Seoul National University)
Hong, Hun-Gi (Seoul National University)
Kim, Heui-Baik (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.38, no.2, 2018 , pp. 219-234 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, we explored the possibility of automating the process of analyzing elements of scientific argument in the context of a Korean classroom. To gather training data, we collected 990 sentences from science education journals that illustrate the results of coding elements of argumentation according to Toulmin's argumentation structure framework. We extracted 483 sentences as a test data set from the transcription of students' discourse in scientific argumentation activities. The words and morphemes of each argument were analyzed using the Python 'KoNLPy' package and the 'Kkma' module for Korean Natural Language Processing. After constructing the 'argument-morpheme:class' matrix for 1,473 sentences, five machine learning techniques were applied to generate predictive models relating each sentences to the element of argument with which it corresponded. The accuracy of the predictive models was investigated by comparing them with the results of pre-coding by researchers and confirming the degree of agreement. The predictive model generated by the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (KNN) demonstrated the highest degree of agreement [54.04% (${\kappa}=0.22$)] when machine learning was performed with the consideration of morpheme of each sentence. The predictive model generated by the KNN exhibited higher agreement [55.07% (${\kappa}=0.24$)] when the coding results of the previous sentence were added to the prediction process. In addition, the results indicated importance of considering context of discourse by reflecting the codes of previous sentences to the analysis. The results have significance in that, it showed the possibility of automating the analysis of students' argumentation activities in Korean language by applying machine learning.
Keywords
Scientific Argumentation; Machine Learning; Artificial Intelligence; Automation; Natural Language Processing;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 14  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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
2 Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.   DOI
3 Fritsch, S., & Guenther, F. (2016). neuralnet: Training of neural networks. R package version 1.33. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=neuralnet
4 Go, A., Bhayani, R., & Huang, L. (2009). Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. CS224N Project Report, Stanford.
5 Lee, S., Kim, H. -J., & Jung, S. (2016). Text-mining based topic analysis on online sexism. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society 33(3), 159-199.
6 Lee, S., Lee, C., & Lee, G. (2010). Example-based dialog system for english conversation tutoring. Journal of KISS : Software and Applications, 37(2), 129-136.
7 Lee, S., Park, S. -H., & Kim, H. -B. (2016). Exploring secondary students’ progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(6), 895-910.   DOI
8 Lee, S. -K. (2006). The patterns and the characteristics of students’ interactive argumentation in the small-group discussions. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(1), 79-88.   DOI
9 Goodman, B. A., Linton, F. N., Gaimari, R. D., Hitzeman, J. M., Ross, H. J., & Zarrella, G. (2005). Using dialogue features to predict trouble during collaborative learning. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 15(1), 85-134.   DOI
10 Go, I. -K. (2016). The key concept study of agriculture unit in practical arts based on big data analysis methods. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(4), 431-450.
11 Han, H. -J., Lee, T., Ko, H., Lee, S. -K., Kim, E., Choe, S. -U., & Kim, C. -J. (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
12 Heo, H., Yang, E. -J., Kim, D., Choi, J. G., & Moon, Y. S. (2017). Human intelligence and learning in the era of artificial intelligence. The Korean Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(1), 101-132.   DOI
13 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
14 Lim, D. (2015). Bigdata analysis using R. Paju: Freeacademy.
15 Lee, Y., Lee, S., & Kim, H. -B. (2015). Understanding students’ knowledge construction and scientific argumentation according to the level of openness in inquiry and the abstraction level of scientific knowledge. Biology Education, 43(1), 50-69.   DOI
16 Lee, Y. -O. (2002). Translation problems between Korean and English reflecting their structural differences: With respect to the translation of reported speech. The Journal of Translation Studies, 3(1), 59-81.
17 Lim, D. (2011). Sentence types in Korean. Journal of Korean Linguistics, 60(4), 323-359.
18 Lim, J., Song, Y. -M., Song, M., & Yang, I. -H. (2010). An analysis on the level of elementary gifted students’ argumentation in scientific inquiry. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(4), 441-450.
19 Lim, H., & Yeo, S. -I. (2012). Characteristics on elementary students' argumentation in science problem solving process. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(1), 13-24.
20 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
21 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), 449-472.
22 Sampson, V., & Schleigh, S. (2013). Scientific argumentation in biology: 30 classroom activities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
23 Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2012). Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support and teach argumentation: A survey. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 71-124). Bentham Books.
24 Shin, H. S., & Kim, H. -J. (2011). 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
25 Shin, S., Ha, M., & Lee, J. -K. (2017). High school students’ perception of artificial intelligence: Focusing on conceptual understanding, emotion and risk perception. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 17(21), 289-312.
26 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
27 Jang, G. -H. (2003). A trial on restruction of written language/spoken language and their styles. Korean Semantics, 13, 143-165.
28 Sionti, M., Ai, H., Rosé, C. P., & Resnick, L. (2011). A framework for analyzing development of argumentation through classroom discussions. Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills, 28-55.
29 Soller, A. (2004). Computational modeling and analysis of knowledge sharing in collaborative distance learning. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 14(4), 351-381.   DOI
30 Ivezic, Z., Connolly, A. J., VanderPlas, J. T., & Gray, A. (2014). Statistics, data mining, and machine learning in astronomy: A practical Python guide for the analysis of survey data. NJ: Princeton University Press.
31 Kim, I. -H. (2003). The nature of context and its relations to language use. English Language Education, 26, 7-34.
32 Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. London: Pearson..
33 Jeon, H. (2016). KoNLP: Korean NLP package. R package version 0.80.1. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=KoNLP.
34 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., 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
35 Jung, C. Y., & Seo, Y. H. (1998). Artificial intelligence: machine translation of Korean-to-English spoken language based on semantic patterns. The KIPS Transactionsty, 5(9), 2361-2368.
36 Karatzoglou A., Smola A., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2004). kernlab - An S4 package for kernel methods in R. Journal of Statistical Software 11(9), 1-20. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from http://www.jstatsoft. org/v11/i09/
37 Kim, K., & Park, Y. (2017). Development and application of the teaching and learning model of artificial intelligence education for elementary students. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 21(1), 137-147.   DOI
38 Kwon, J. -S., & Kim, H. -B. (2016). Exploring small group argumentation shown in designing an experiment: Focusing on students’ epistemic goals and epistemic considerations for activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61.   DOI
39 Lantz, B. (2013). Machine learning with R. Packt Publishing Ltd.
40 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.   DOI
41 Meyer, D., Dimitriadou, E., Hornik, K., Weingessel, A., & Leisch, F. (2017). e1071: Misc functions of the department of statistics, probability theory group (formerly: E1071), TU Wien. R package version 1.6-8. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=e1071
42 McAlister, S., Allen, C., Ravenscroft, A., Reed, C., Bourget, D., Lawrence, J., Borner, K., & Light, R. (2014). From big data to argument analysis and automated extraction: A selective study of argument in the philosophy of animal psychology from the volumes of the hathi trust collection. Final Report. Digging into Data.
43 McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.   DOI
44 McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. Thinking with Data, 233-265.
45 Ministry of Education (MOE) (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
46 Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371-393.   DOI
47 Oh, J. A., Lee, S. -K., & Kim, C. -J. (2008). A case study on scientific inquiry and argumentative communication in earth science MBL classes. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 29(2), 189-203.   DOI
48 Wee, S., Yoon, J., & Lim, S. (2014). An analysis on argumentation structure development of preservice teachers through argumentative writing on earth science related SSI. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 7(1), 11-23.   DOI
49 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50 Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. (2002) Modern applied statistics with S (4th ed.). NY: Springer.
51 Won, H. -Y. (2011). A study on the colloquial final ending '-잖아(요)' for Korean language education. Korean Language & Literature, 79, 307-327.
52 Williams, J. M., & Colomb, G. G. (2007). The craft of argument. Pearson Education.
53 Lee, D., Yeon, J., Hwang, I., & Lee, S. (2010). KKMA: A tool for utilizing sejong corpus based on relational database. Journal of KIISE: Computing Practices and Letters, 16(11), 1046-1050.
54 Yu, Y. -L., & Baek, S. -G. (2016). Issue analysis of the related mass media’s news articles on the 2015 revised national curriculum using automated text analysis. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 19(3), 127-156.
55 Zhang, B. -T. (2017). Deep learning. Seoul: Hongrung Publishing Company.
56 Zhao, M. (2016). A study for the adverb postpositions of 'ey', 'eyse' in the Korean language: Focused 'ey', 'eyse'. Studies in Linguistics, 40(7), 337-359.
57 Baek, J., Jeong, D. H., & Hwang, S. (2014). Issues and effects in developing inquiry-based argumentation task for science teachers: A case of Charles’ law experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 79-92.   DOI
58 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.   DOI
59 Larrain, A., Freire, P., & Howe, C. (2014). Science teaching and argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middle-school science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1017-1036.   DOI
60 Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.   DOI
61 Lee, E. J., Yun, S. M., & Kim, H. -B. (2015). Exploring small group argumentation and epistemological framing of gifted science students as revealed by the analysis of their responses to anomalous data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 419-429.   DOI
62 Lee, J., & Kim, H. -B. (2011). Small group argumentation pattern of middle school students constructed in the conflict context. Biology Education, 39(2), 235-247.   DOI
63 Lee, J., Nam, C., & Shin, D. (2017). Machine learning bigdata education platform using apache spark. Proceedings of the Korea Software Congress 2017.
64 Domingos, P. (2015). The master algorithm: How the quest for ultimate learning machine will remake our world. NY: Basic Books.
65 Ok, J. -S. (2004). A study on the prospect of using speech recognition softwares in elementary English education, STEM Journal, 5(2), 65-82.
66 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
67 Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
68 Cho, H. -A., Chang, J. -E., & Kim, H. -B. (2013). Epistemic level in middle school students’ small-group argumentation using first-hand or second-hand data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(2), 486-500.   DOI
69 Choi, S. J., & Kim, J. -B. (2017). Comparison analysis of speech recognition open APIs' accuracy. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 7(8), 411-418.
70 Lee, J. -A., Maeng, S. -H., & Kim, C. -J. (2008). A new way of reading the science classroom discourse: Pedagogical discourse analysis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 832-847.
71 Lee, J. -S., Kang, K. -H., & Lee, S. -K. (2005). Students’ interactions of reasoning and inductions in small group science discussion. The Journal of the Smeieccu, 26(1), 91-112.
72 Lee, K. H., Yun, S. -M., & Kim, H. -B. (2012). Understanding of middle school students’ small group argumentation of plant and animal classification: Focusing on the effects of leader. Biology Education, 40(10), 71-86.   DOI
73 Park, J. H., & Shin, N. M. (2017). Student’s perceptions of artificial intelligence technology and artificial intelligence teachers. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 34(2), 169-192
74 Paik, S. H., & Son, S. H. (2014). An analysis of pre-service science teachers' argument structures, the factors affecting the practice of state change experiment in 7th grade and cognition of pre-service education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 197-206.   DOI
75 Pardo, A. (2014). Designing learning analytics experiences. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: From research to practice (pp. 15-38). NY: Springer.
76 Park, E. L., & Cho, S. (2014). KoNLPy: Korean natural language processing in Python. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Human & Cognitive Language Technology, Chuncheon, Korea, Oct 2014.
77 Park, S. -K. (2015). Analysis on the argumentation pattern and level of students' mental models in modeling-based learning about geologic structures. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(5), 919-929.   DOI
78 Ripley, B. (2016). tree: Classification and regression trees. R package version 1.0-37. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tree
79 Rosé, C., Wang, Y. -C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 237-271.   DOI