Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.1

Exploring the Role of Collaborative Reflection in Small Group Argumentation: Focus on Students' Epistemic Considerations and Practices  

Cho, Hanbit (Seoul National University)
Ha, Heesoo (Seoul National University)
Kim, Heui-Baik (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.39, no.1, 2019 , pp. 1-12 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to explore students' epistemic practices and considerations, which are explained as underlying epistemic thoughts that guide their epistemic practices, during argumentation in science classrooms. We also investigated how collaborative reflection facilitated the development of such epistemic considerations. Two seventh-grade classes participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities and collaborative reflection after classes. A group with students' change in epistemic aspects and the influence of collaborative reflection clearly revealed from their practices was chosen as a focus group. We recorded their class discussions and collaborative reflections with the researchers. Transcriptions of the recordings and checklists we collected during the collaborative reflections were used for analysis. Results showed evident changes in the students' epistemic considerations and practices and four factors facilitating such developments were identified. First, the researcher facilitating the students to recognize each other as collaborators during collaborative reflection led development of epistemic considerations on "audience using the knowledge products." Second, the collaborative reflection facilitated construction of context for peer interactions where the students encouraged each other to participate in the discussion, resulting in the development of other students' epistemic considerations on "justifications in knowledge products." Third, the items provided on the checklists explicitly delineated expectations on their practices in argumentation, also facilitating development of epistemic considerations. Lastly, the students' imitation of the researcher's pattern of discourse facilitated construction of causal explanation and development of epistemic considerations on "nature of the knowledge products." This study will contribute to the construction of strategies that develop students' epistemic considerations and productive epistemic practices in argumentation.
Keywords
collaborative reflection; epistemic consideration; epistemic practice; scientific argumentation;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Adams, J., Avraamidou, L., Bayram-Jacobs, D., Boujaoude, S., Bryan, L., Christodoulou, A., ... Zembal-Saul, C. (2018). The Role of Science Educationina Changing World. Lorentz Center, Netherlands.
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 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 student. Journal of Research in Science Teacing, 53(7), 1082-1112.   DOI
5 Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations(pp. 188-228). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
6 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
7 Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573-595.   DOI
8 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
9 Park, C. M., & Martin, S. (2018). Improving Science Teaching and Learning for New Teachers and Diverse Learners Using Participatory Action Research and Cogenerative Dialogue. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(2), 97-112.   DOI
10 Park, S. H., Lee, S. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2014). Exploring Middle School Students’ Metacognitive Development via Collaborative Reflection of Small-Group Argumentation in Science Classroom. The Korean Society of Biology Education, 42(1), 1-15.
11 Pattison,S.A.,Gontan,I.,Ramos‐Montañez, S., & Moreno, L. (2018). Identity negotiation within peer groups during an informal engineering education program: The central role of leadership‐oriented youth. Science Education. 102(5), 978-1006.   DOI
12 Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.   DOI
13 Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.   DOI
14 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
15 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
16 Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al.(2004). A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. The Journal of The Learning Science, 13(3), 337-386.   DOI
17 Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2001). The Implications of Coteaching / Cogenerative Dialogue for Teacher Evaluation: Learning from Multiple Perspectives of Everyday Practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(1), 7-29.   DOI
18 Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus Dispute: The Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417-446.   DOI
19 Engelmann, T., Kozlov, M. D., Kolodziej, R., & Clariana, R. B. (2014). Fostering group norm development and orientation while creating awareness contents for improving net-based collaborative problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 298-306.   DOI
20 Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 35-52.   DOI
21 Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, and P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
23 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.   DOI
24 Sandoval. W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.   DOI
25 Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.   DOI
26 Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.   DOI
27 Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-88). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
28 Tobin, K. (2014). Using Collaborative Inquiry to Better Understand Teaching and Learning. In J. L. Bencze & S. Alsop(Eds.), Activist Science and Technology Education (Vol. 9, pp. 127-147). Dordrecht: Springer.
29 Shanahan, M. -C. (2009). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 43-64.   DOI
30 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
31 Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: Perspectives from the field. Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
32 Yun, H. J., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring Science High School Student’ Epistemic Goal, Epistemic Considerations and Complexity of Reasoning in Open Inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 541-553.   DOI
33 Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34 Kelly, G. J. (2005). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. proceedings of the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, February. Retrieved December 2006, from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/rgrandy/NSFConSched.html.
35 Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M.. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre(Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.117-136). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
36 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.   DOI
37 Kwon, J. S., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring Small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment: Focusing on Students’ Epistemic Goal and Epistemic Considerations for Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61.   DOI
38 Lee, C. E. & Kim, H. B. (2016). Understanding the Role of Wonderment Questions Relatedto Activation of Conceptual Resources in Scientific Model Construction: Focusing on Students’ Epistemological Framing and Positional Framing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 471-483.   DOI
39 Lee, S. Y., 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
40 Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 693-720.   DOI
41 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
42 Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.   DOI