Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2014.7.1.011

An Analysis on argumentation structure development of preservice teachers through argumentative writing on earth science related SSI  

Wee, Soo-Meen (Korea National University of Education)
Yoon, Ji-Young (Korea National University of Education)
Lim, Sung-Man (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education / v.7, no.1, 2014 , pp. 11-23 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the degree of argumentation structure development and factors of development of preservice teachers through SSI related argumentative writings. The study was conducted with 16 preservice teachers that students taking elementary science education theory class in K university located in Chungbuk. The testees wrote six SSI related argumentative writings (once a week), and we examined the degree of argumentation structure development and the change in the recognition of SSI of the preservice teachers by comparing the writings before and after the experiments. The experimental results showed that argumentation structure of the preservice teachers'writings improved and argument level (argument capability) of them also increased as the number of writing was increased. Factors that affect the argumentation structure improvement are mainly argumentation structure education, a number of writings, feedbacks, and subjects related to SSI. In this aspect, the argumentative writing on SSI has the effect of developing scientific sophistication and enhancing the decision-making power of students, and it has positive impacts in science education.
Keywords
argumentation; SSI; argumentative writing; preservice teacher;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Argumentative discourse in a high school chemistry classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 106(8), 349-361.   DOI
3 Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning for the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Colaizzi, P. E. (1978), Psychological research as the phenomenologist view it existential phenomenology: Oxford University press.
5 Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in science genes: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130.   DOI
6 Gragson, D. E., & Hagen, J. P. (2010). Developing technical writing skills in the physical chemistry laboratory: A progressive approach employing peer review. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 62-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Lee Hyun-ju, & Chang Hyun-sook(2007). The Comparison of State-level U.S. Science Curricula with Science Teachers' Perception Regarding Teaching Socioscientiifc Issues(SSI). The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 10(1), 189-209.
8 Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 National Research Council[NRC], (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10 Newton, p., Driver, R., & Osborn, J. (1999). The plaace of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Ochsner, R., & Fowler, J. (2004). Playing devil's advocate: Evaluating the literature of the WAC/WID movement. Review of Educational Research, 7492), 117-140.   DOI
12 Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593.   DOI
13 Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 O'Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (Eds.) (1998). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15 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   ScienceOn
16 Song Yun-mi, Yang Il-ho, Kim Ju-yeon, & Choi, Hyun-dong(2011). A Study of the Elementary School Teachers' Perception of Science Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 31(5), 788-800.   과학기술학회마을
17 Wee Soo-meen, & Lim Sung-man(2013). Awareness and Eductional Needs Concerning SSI of Korean Pre-service Elementary Teachers Related to Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Journal of Science Education in Korea, 37(2), 294-309.   DOI
18 Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for sosioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Ministry of Education and Science Technology(2009). Korean 2009 Revision Science Curriculum. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
20 Flower, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296.   DOI   ScienceOn