Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.1.1

Escaping Uncertainty: Elementary Students' Emotional-Cognitive Rebuttals in the Argumentation of "Why Did the Kidney Beans not Germinate?"  

Han, Moonhyun (Bucheon Elementary School)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.40, no.1, 2020 , pp. 1-12 More about this Journal
Abstract
In scientific argumentation, students can use rebuttals to escape uncertainty, which, in this case, can be defined as a vague and fuzzy feeling about other students' explanations. As rebuttals can play a critical role in the sophistication of arguments and the alleviation of uncertainty, this study aims to understand the dynamics of uncertainty and rebuttals by exploring the context of the uncertainty experienced by elementary school students in the argumentation of "Why did the kidney beans not germinate?" and to get insights based on the research results. Twenty fourth-grade students and their homeroom teacher in Kyong-Ki province, South Korea, took part in the research. Students engaged in argumentation in five small groups of four students. The researcher collected qualitative data through video transcriptions, student interviews, and field notes. In the data analysis, the researcher employed the constant comparative method to explore in what context students experienced uncertainty and how they used rebuttals. The results of this study were as follows: First, students tried to reduce their uncertainty through argumentation on why the kidney beans did not germinate. Second, students used elaboration-oriented rebuttals, personal opinion-oriented rebuttals, and blame-oriented rebuttals to reduce this uncertainty. However, when they used blame-oriented rebuttals, their uncertainty and negative emotions increased. Third, intervention by the teacher led students to stop using blame-oriented rebuttals. Instead, they employed elaboration-oriented rebuttals to explore why the kidney beans would not sprout, and finally, they escaped uncertainty by discovering an appropriate explanation. Based on the findings of this study, the researcher discussed how the interaction between uncertainty and elaboration-oriented rebuttals could shape and facilitate argument development in elementary school students.
Keywords
Argumentation; Emotion; Epistemic practice; Rebuttal; Uncertainty;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 10  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Wells, G. (2000). Modes of meaning in a science activity. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 307-334.   DOI
2 Wendell, K. B., & Lee, S. (2010). Elementary students' learning of materials science practices through instruction based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 580-601. DOI:10.1007s10956-010-9225-8   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 Barr, D. J. (2003). Paralinguistic correlates of conceptual structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 462-467.   DOI
5 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.   DOI
6 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.   DOI
7 Buck, Z. E., Lee, H.‐S., & Flores, J. (2014). I am sure there may be a planet there: Student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2391-2420.   DOI
8 Chen, Y.-C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in science argumentation. Science Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21527
9 Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: The role of feelings in the construction of social judgment. In A. Tesser & L. L. Martin (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10 Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. London, England: Sage.
11 Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.   DOI
12 Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J., Sherin, M., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3-53.   DOI
13 Duit. R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 671-688.   DOI
14 Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 705-726). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
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 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
17 Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 202-224). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18 Park, C., & Cha, H. (2017). Analysis of epistemic considerations and scientific argumentation level in argumentation to conceptualize the concept of natural selection of science-gifted elementary students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 565-575.   DOI
19 Park, S-H., Lee S., & Kim, H-B. (2014). Exploring middle school students' metacognitive development via collaborative reflection of small-group argumentation in science classroom. Biology Education, 42(1), 1-15.   DOI
20 Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive science, 11(4), 481-518.   DOI
21 Feldman, C. F., & Wertsch, J. V. (1976). Context dependent properties of teachers' speech. Youth & Society, 7(3), 227-258.   DOI
22 Garcia‐Carmona, A., & Acevedo‐Diaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science and Education, 26(1-2), 65-91.   DOI
23 Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75.   DOI
24 Ha, H., Lee, Y. M., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring the teachers' responsive teaching practice and epistemological framing in whole class discussion after small group argumentation activity. Journal of the Korean Assoication for Science Education, 38(1), 11-26.
25 Schunn, C. D., Saner, L. D., Kirschenbaum, S. K., Trafton, J. G., & Littleton, E. B. (2007). Complex visual data analysis, uncertainty, and representation. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 27-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26 Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114-133.   DOI
27 Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.   DOI
28 Schubert, T. W. (2009). A new conception of spatial presence: Once again, with feeling. Communication Theory, 19, 161-187.   DOI
29 Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385-407). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30 She, H. C., & Liao, Y. W. (2009). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 91-119.   DOI
31 Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 4(1), 39-103.   DOI
32 Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 138-156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
33 Han, M. H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Elementary students' cognitive-emotional rebuttals in their modeling activity: Focusing on epistemic affect. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 155-168.   DOI
34 Han, M. H., & Kim, H. B. (2018). An introverted elementary students' construction of epistemic affect during modeling participation patterns. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(2), 171-186.   DOI
35 Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189-220.   DOI
36 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
37 Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536.   DOI
38 Kang, B. C., Kang, S. H., Kim, Y. H., Park, J. W., Seo, E. J., Lee, W. J., Jung, H. S., Che, W. H., Cho, J. Y., Chae, J. C., Ha, S. H., Hyun, T. H., & Hong, J. I. (2019). SNU scientists who believe in God. Seoul, South Korea: Revival and reform corporation.
39 Kim, H., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2015a). Expression of students' agency in an elementary school science class: A focus on teaching and learning contexts. Biology Education, 43(3), 289-301.   DOI
40 Kim, S., Lee, S. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2015b). 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
41 King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally intense science activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1886-1914.   DOI
42 King, D., Ritchie, S. M., Sandhu, M., Henderson, S., & Borand, B. (2017). Temporality of Emotion: Antecedent and successive variants of frustration when learning chemistry. Science Education, 101(4), 639-672.   DOI
43 Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90-104.   DOI
44 Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45 Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360.   DOI
46 Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infussed scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581-605.   DOI
47 Lee, H.‐S., Pallant, A., Pryputniewicz, S., Lord, T., Mulholland, M., & Liu, O. L. (2019). Automated text scoring and real‐time adjustable feedback: Supporting revision of scientific arguments involving uncertainty. Science Education, 103(3), 590-622.   DOI
48 Lee, K. H., Yoon, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2013). Differences in reasoning patterns in small-group argumentation focused on the features of classificuation task. Biology Education, 40(3), 344-356.
49 Alsop, S. (2005). Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering Affect in the Teaching and Learning of Science. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
50 Afifi, T. D., & Afifi, W. A. (Eds.). (2009). Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
51 Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznetskaya, A., & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1901_1   DOI
52 Arango-Munoz, S. (2014). The nature of epistemic feelings. Philosophical Psychology, 27(2), 193-211.   DOI
53 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
54 Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex publishing corporation.
55 Arango-Munoz, S., & Michaelian, K. (2014). Epistemic feelings, epistemic emotions: Review and introduction to the focus section. Philosophical Inquiries, 2/1, 97-122.
56 Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358-402.   DOI
57 Lin, Y.-R., & Hung, J.-F. (2016). The analysis and reconciliation of students' rebuttals in argumentation activities. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 130-155.   DOI
58 Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous speech. Word, 15, 19-44.   DOI
59 McNeill, K. L., Gonzalez Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers' enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426-457.   DOI
60 McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
61 Meaney, T. (2006). Really that's probably about roughly what goes down: Hesitancies and uncertainties in mathematics assessment interactions. Language and Education, 20, 374-390.   DOI
62 Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465   DOI
63 Turner, G. J., & Pickvance, R. E. (1973). Social class differences in the expression of uncertainty in five-year-old children. In B. Bernstein (Ed.), Class, codes, and control (pp. 303-325). London, England: Routledge.
64 Tomas, L., Rigano, D., & Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Students' regulation of their emotions in a science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 234-260.   DOI
65 Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66 Turner, J. H. (2009). The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1(4), 340-354.   DOI
67 Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science and Education, 23(7), 1427-1445.   DOI
68 Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense‐making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.   DOI
69 Weary, G., Marsh, K. L., Gleicher, F., & Edwards, J. A. (1993). Depression, control motivation, and the processing of information about others. In G. Weary, F. Gleicher, & K. L. Marsh (Eds.), Control motivation and social cognition (pp. 255-287). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
70 Osborne, J. E. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-215.   DOI
71 Osborne, J. E., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.   DOI
72 Osborne, J. E., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI