• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.45-61
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore students' epistemic goals and considerations in designing an experiment task and to investigate how a shift in the students' epistemology affected their argumentation. Four 7th grade students were selected as a focus group. According to the results, when they designed their own experiment, their epistemic goal was 'scientific sense-making' and their epistemic considerations - the perception of the nature of the knowledge product was 'this experiment should explain how something happened', the perception of the justification was 'we need to use our interpretation of the data' and the perception of the audience was 'constructor' - contributed to designing their experiment actively. When students tried to select one argument, their epistemic goal shifted to 'winning a debate', showing 'my experiment is better than the others' with the perception of the audience, 'competitor'. Consequently, students only deprecated the limits of different experiment so that they did not explore the meaning of each experiment design deeply. Eventually, student A's experiment design was selected due to time restrictions. When they elaborated upon their result, their epistemic goal shifted to 'scientific sensemaking', reviewing 'how this experiment design is scientifically valid' through scientific justification - we need justification to make members accept it - acting as 'cooperator'. Consequently, all members engaged in a productive argumentation that led to the development of the group result. This study lays the foundation for future work on understanding students' epistemic goals and considerations to prompt productive argumentation in science classrooms.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2019

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.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.1-31
• /
• 2008

최근 가장 영향력 있는 수학적 실재론과 관련된 논변은 버지스와 로젠의 딜레마이다. 일종의 반-유명론적 논증인 버지스-로젠 딜레마는 유명론자들이 취할 수 있는 제한된 선택지를 제시한 후 그 어느 선택지도 적절하지 못함을 주장하는 것이다. 논자 역시 버지스-로젠 딜레마가 성립한다면 유명론이 가망 없는 전략임에 동의한다. 그러나 논자는 그들의 논의가 유명론 대 실재론이라는 대립구도 대신, 유명론 대 수학 및 과학이라는 잘못된 대립구도를 전제하고 있음을 본 논문을 통해 밝히고자 한다. 간략히 말해, 논자는 버지스-로젠 딜레마는 수학자 및 과학자들의 주장이 글자 그대로 실재론을 함의함을 전제하는데, 이것은 실제 수학 및 과학 활동과 일치하지 않을뿐더러, 이를 입증하기 위해서는 철학적 가정이 개입해야 함을 밝히고, 그 과정에서 유명론의 가능성을 모색하고자 한다. 이러한 논자의 전략은 유명론 진영 안의 특정한 입장을 지지하는 것은 아니다. 버지스-로젠 딜레마는 특정한 유명론의 문제라기보다는 유명론 자체의 가능성과 관련된 것이기 때문이다.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.307-320
• /
• 2019

This study explores how an elementary school homeroom teacher who continued to lecture, can use diversified science teaching methods for learner-centered instruction. Using an auto-ethnographic approach over the course of a year, self-memory data, facebook diaries, class diaries, and interview data of an elementary teacher's day-to-day preparations and practice of elementary science, in the context of a Korean elementary school, were collected. The data was analyzed through cultural historical activity theory, examining how the interplay of key elements (i.e., the subject as a homeroom teacher with instructional expertise, norms, community, division of labor, tools, and goals) was characterized within and across distinct two-activity systems, and how these elements shaped the teacher's teaching methods into either lecture format or diversified teaching. The study revealed that a non-cooperative community, lack of division of labor, and norms that neglect preparation for science class were the elements that perpetuated the lecture format, and that a contradiction between goals and tools occurred in the activity system. However, these elements were able to be transformed into a cooperative community, shared labor, and norms that saved preparation time for both science class and diversified teaching methods, and those changed elements facilitated the teacher in using diversified teaching methods (e.g., experiments, subject-integrated classes, field work), thereby mitigating the contradiction. This study also discusses that diversified teaching methods can be facilitated when dealing with norms, community, and division of labor elements in an elementary school context as well as improving individual teachers' instructional expertise.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.805-822
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to explore the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. The subjects were 14, 8th graders in a Science Gifted Center. The group discussion was made possible by using triggering questions that can be answered based on experiences of hands-on activities such as a siphon pump analogy model activity and a dissection of pigs' hearts. Despite participating in same activities, the groups showed different model development patterns: unchanged, persuasive, and elaborated. Due to the critical revising, the group's explanatory model was elaborated and developed in the added and elaborated pattern. As critical revising is a core element of the developing model, it is important to promote a group interaction so that students become critical and receptive. The pedagogical analogy model and conflict situation enabled students to present elaborated reasoning. The Inquiry activity with the pedagogical analogy model promote students' spontaneous reasoning in relation to direct experience. Therefore offering a pedagogical analogy model will help students evaluate, revise and develop their models of concerned phenomena in science classroom. Conflict situation by rebuttal enable students to justify more solid and elaborate a model close to the target model. Therefore, teachers need to facilitate a group atmosphere for spontaneous conflict situation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.401-414
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study is to explore the cognitive achievement characteristics by group of achievement levels in the PISA 2018 science domain compared to the results of the PISA 2015, and to compare and analyze the 'epistemic' knowledge in the revised curriculum 2009 and in the revised curriculum 2007. The average correctness rates in PISA 2015 and PISA 2018 were analyzed by sub category of the evaluation frame in the PISA scientific domain. In the competencies domain, especially, the average correct answer rates of 'evaluating and designing scientific inquiry' were the lowest in medium and lower groups, but the rates rose in all achievement groups compared to PISA 2015, which is encouraging. Although the answer rates were low for both 'living system' knowledge and 'epistemic' knowledge in the knowledge domain, the average answer rates of the upper and middle groups increased in 'epistemic' knowledge compared to PISA 2015. The changes in the curriculum experienced by students participating in PISA were analyzed in relation to the 'evaluating and designing scientific inquiry' competency and 'epistemic' knowledge, which increased in average correct answer rates. In terms of understanding science, the "What is science?" unit that explicitly presents epistemic knowledge, and nature of model in inquiry activities, were explicitly presented in the revised curriculum 2009. In terms of understanding the process of justifying scientific knowledge, the number of inquiry activities increased, scientific explanations based on experimental results strengthened, and the "Science and Human Civilization" unit was introduced to help students to understand STS while simultaneously conducting arguments. These findings confirm the educational performance of groups by achievement level in the PISA 2018 scientific domain and suggest that the direction of education relates to epistemic knowledge in Korea's Science curriculum.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.541-553
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between epistemic goals, epistemic considerations and complexity of reasoning of science high school students in an open inquiry and to explore the context on how open inquiry compares with the characteristics of an authentic scientific inquiry. Two teams were selected as focus groups and a case study was conducted. The findings are as follows: First, the contexts, such as 'sharing the value for the phenomenon understanding, reflection on the value of the research, task characteristics that require collaboration and consensus, and sufficient communication opportunities,' promote epistemic goals and considerations. On the other hand, contexts such as 'lack of opportunity for critical review of related literature and environmental constraints' lowered epistemic sides. Second, epistemic goals and considerations influenced the reasoning complexity. The goal of 'scientific sense making' led to reasoning that pose testable hypotheses based on students' own questions. The high justification considerations led to purposely focusing attention to the control designs and developing creative experimental know-how. The high audience considerations led to defending their findings through argumentation and suggesting future research. On the other hand, the goal of 'doing the lesson' and the low justification considerations led to reasoning that did not interpret the meaning of the data and did not control the limit of experiment. The low audience considerations led to reasoning that did not actively defend their findings and not suggest future research. The results of this study suggest that guidance should provide communication and critical review opportunities.