Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.5.637

Development of Scientific Conceptual Understanding through Process-Centered Assessment that Visualizes the Process of Scientific Argumentation  

Kim, Misook (Korea National University of Education)
Ryu, Suna (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.39, no.5, 2019 , pp. 637-654 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the development of scientific conceptual understanding through a process-centered assessment that visualizes the process of scientific argumentation. In this study, 353 high school students and five teachers participated in the scientific argumentation. As a result of analyzing students' utterances on the elements of argumentation, scientific concepts in intragroup were embodied through query and clarification of meaning, and organized through agreement and rebuttal. In intergroup argumentation, scientific concepts were elaborated through query, clarification of meaning, and change of claim. Teachers were able to understand the process of argumentation through small-group activity sheets where the process was visualized, thereby providing feedback and improving the class. Based on the results, the scientific argumentation of visualizing the process was found not only to allow students to perform self-assessment and peer-assessment but also to help teachers understand the argumentation process. The findings of this study guide process-centered assessment in the science curriculum and are expected to contribute to the promotion of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
Keywords
process-centered assessment; scientific argumentation; visualization of the process; development of scientific conceptual understanding; high school students;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.   DOI
2 Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.   DOI
3 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
4 Jeon, S. (2019). The development and application of process-focused assessment for improving scientific communication skills. Elementary Science Education, 38(1), 16-30.
5 Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.   DOI
6 Ko, H. (2019). The study on the perception, actual condition, and support strategies of process-centered assessment by each teacher. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 19(9), 1137-1164.   DOI
7 Kim, J. (2018). The concept and educational implication of process-focused assessment. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(20), 839-859.
8 Kim, S. S., Kim, H. K., Seo, M. H., & Seong, T. J. (2015). Formative assessment for classroom practice. Seoul: Hakjisa.
9 Kim, Y., & Choi, A. (2019). Teacher perception and practice on free semester science assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(1), 143-160.   DOI
10 Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.   DOI
11 Lee, K.-H., Kang, H. Y., Ko, E.-S., Lee, D.-H., Shin, B., Lee, H. C., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Exploration of the direction for the practice of process-focused assessment. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 26(4), 819-834.
12 Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 305-329.   DOI
13 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
14 Calik, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers' conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1-28.   DOI
15 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
16 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment. Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.   DOI
17 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90.   DOI
18 Charmaz, K., Thornberg, R., & Keane, E. (2017). Evolving grounded theory and social justice inquiry. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 720-776). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
19 Chen, J., Wang, M., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. (2018). Using a threedimensional thinking graph to support inquiry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1239-1263.   DOI
20 Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students' development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100-147.   DOI
21 MOE (Ministry of Education) (2015b). Science Curriculum (MOE Notification No. 2015-74 [supplement 9]). Sejong: Author.
22 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
23 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
24 MOE (Ministry of Education) (2015a). Overview of elementary and secondary school curriculum (MOE Notification No. 2015-74 [supplement 1]). Sejong: Author.
25 MOE & DMCOE (Ministry of Education & Daejeon Metropolitan City Office of Education) (2016). Development of teaching and learning materials for the 2015 revised curriculum-integrated science & science inquiry and experiment. Sejong: Author.
26 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
27 Chiu, M. H., Guo, C. J., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Assessing students’ conceptual understanding in science: An introduction about a national project in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 379-390.   DOI
28 Cho, S.-Y. (2017). Realization plan of connection between the competencebased curriculum, teaching-learning method, and evaluation in high schools. Secondary Education Research, 65(1), 255-281.   DOI
29 Choi, S. K. (2018). A study on the practice of process-focused assessment: Focusing on perceptions of Korean language teachers and application methods of Korean language education. Journal of CheongRam Korean Language Education, 68, 129-176.   DOI
30 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
31 Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291.   DOI
32 Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
33 Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354-367.   DOI
34 Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593.   DOI
35 MOE & KICE (Ministry of Education & Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) (2017). How do you assess the process? (KICE ORM 2017-19-1). Sejong: Author.
36 NRC (National Research Council) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
37 Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (Vol. 9). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
38 Sampson, V., Enderle, P. J., & Walker, J. P. (2012). The development and validation of the assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom (ASAC) observation protocol: A tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 235-264). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
39 Hong, S. H., Chang, I., & Kim, T. S. (2017). Elementary school teachers’ recognition of process-centered evaluation using consensual qualitative research (CQR). The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 47-69.
40 Ryu, S., Kwak, Y. & Yang, S. H. (2018). Theoretical exploration of a process-centered assessment model for STEAM competency based on learning progressions. Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 132-147.   DOI
41 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
42 Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395-442.   DOI
43 Tytler, R. (2009). Longitudinal studies into science learning: Methodological issues. In Quality research in literacy and science education (pp. 83-105). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
44 Son, J. (2018). The effect of backward design reflecting process-focused assessment on science learning achievement and science learning motivation of elementary school students. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 11(2), 90-106.   DOI
45 Syh-Jong, J. (2007). A study of students' construction of science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49(1), 65-81.   DOI
46 Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47 Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.   DOI