• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.79-92
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to develop an inquiry-based argumentation task for use in science teachers' professional development by providing them with the substantial experience of argumentation. To do so, the study has developed an argumentation task by utilizing the experiment on the Charles' Law of gas and revised by applying to eight teachers three times. We have revised the questions by analyzing three issues that have been revealed throughout this process in ways that facilitated teachers' argumentation. The effects of revision have been confirmed by the improvements in teachers' argumentation pattern. Three issues have been identified in developing argumentation tasks for science teachers' professional development and they are as follows: determining the openness of the structure of a question, achieving cognitive conflict and convergence of opinions at the same time, and ways of utilizing various evidence. As the task has been revised in ways that enabled scientific approach to the inquiry topic and facilitated the convergence of various opinions, the participants' argumentation patterns have improved both quantitatively and qualitatively. Meanwhile, the inclusion of an actual experiment has not influence their argumentation, while the observation of experimental data has been used as the core evidence according to the character of the problem. Based on the study's result, we suggest practical implications for developing argumentation tasks for science teachers in more varying contexts.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.691-707
• /
• 2015

This study aims to develop biology teachers' education program based on argumentation activity about core concepts of evolution and to analyze the characteristics of core concepts of evolution learned during the program. The eight core concepts of evolution in this study were variation, heritability of variation, competition, natural selection, adaptation, differential reproductive rate of individuals, changes in genetic pool within a population, and macroevolution. The performances of teachers participating in the program were compared before and after argumentation activities; consisting of seven sessions on the eight core concepts of evolution. The process of the program was specially designed by learning cycle model for teacher education, consisting of seven phases: identification of the task, production of a tentative argument, small group's written argument, share arguments with the other groups, reflective discussion, final written argument, and organization by an instructor. Participants in the study were two pre-service biology teachers and four in-service biology teachers. The results suggest that biology teachers reduced the teleological explanation for biological evolution and improve its adequacy after the intervention. Teachers lacked the opportunity to discuss variation, heritability of variation, competition, and macroevolution because science textbooks lack information on the concepts of biological evolution. The results of this study suggest that because the argumentation program developed for teachers helps to improve understanding the concepts of evolution and to reduce inadequate conceptions in biology, teacher education programs using argumentation activity and eight core concepts of evolution will play a role for efficient evolution education for biology teachers.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.5
• /
• pp.694-708
• /
• 2011

In this study, we developed tasks including cognitive scaffolding for students to explain scientific phenomena using valid evidences in science classroom and sought to investigate how tasks influence the development of small group scientific argumentation. Heterogeneous small groups in gender and achievement were organized in one classroom and the tasks were applied to the class. Students were asked to write down their own ideas, share individual ideas, and then choose the most plausible opinion in a group. One group was chosen for investigating the effect of tasks on the development of small group argumentation through the analysis of discourse transcripts of the group in 10 lessons, students' semi-structured interview, field note, and students' pre- and post argument tests. The discrepant argument examples were included in the tasks for students to refute an argument presenting evidences. Moreover, comparing opinion within the group and persuading others were included in the tasks to prompt small group argumentation. As a result, students' post-argument test grades were increased than pre-test grades, and they argued involving evidences and reasoning. The high level of arguments has appeared with high ratio of advanced utterances and lengthening of reasoning chain as lessons went on. Students had elaborate claims involving valid evidences and reasoning by reflective and critical thinking while discussing about the tasks. In addition, tasks which could have various warrants based on the data led to students' spontaneous participation. Therefore, this study has significance in understanding the context of developing small group argumentation, providing information about teaching and learning context prompting students to construct arguments in science inquiry lessons in middle school.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.591-606
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to develop the argumentation program to build scientific concepts on natural selection for science-gifted elementary students and to know how to implement this program. For this study, nine key concepts about natural selection such as the overproduction of offspring, limited resources, population stability, competition, variation, heredity of variation, differential survival, change of the population and speciation were selected through the literature study. The programs were developed by learning cycle instructional model. Argument writings and discourses have been collected, analyzed and compared before and after the program. Two questionnaires to compare pre and post concept change consist of multiple choice questionnaire and open-ended response question were developed and applied to 19 science-gifted elementary students. Sufficiency of the explanation and conceptual quality of the explanation were used to assess the quality of their arguments before and after the program. Discourse and visual models collected from the highest and lowest group about score improvement were compared. The scores of the gifted statistically improved significantly in multiple choice questionnaire. Students' alternative conceptions about natural selection at the beginning of the program decreased and changed scientifically after the program. Visual models drawn by the students supported the results as well. This study asserts that elementary science-gifted students are able to explain evolutionary perspectives about organism change and use the key concepts of natural selection. The study means that evolutionary perspective is possible to be reflected in elementary science curriculum for the gifted.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2020

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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.249-257
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to analyze the knowledge and ability levels of middle school students in four areas: conceptual understanding, argument construction, justification schemes, and use of scientific knowledge in a causal explanation for a genetic phenomenon. A group of 162 middle school students who have taken a class titled Genetics and Evolution participated in the study. Each student answered-and justified the answer to-one question pertaining to genetics. Ability levels were rated from level 0 to level 4, with 4 being the top rating. Students were required to choose one of two competing arguments to explain whether green seed pimps and red seed pimps of the same size and shape were the same species or not. Analyzing conceptual understanding: 47% of the respondents provided the correct answer. Analyzing their abilities for constructing an argument: 75% of the students with the correct answer and 42% of the students with the incorrect answer were evaluated to be at ability level 3 or 4 for argument construction. Analyzing the students' justification schemes: "Scientific idea" and "Analogy" were the most frequently used schemes. Analyzing their use of scientific knowledge: of the students who selected the scientific idea justification scheme, 36% used the correct scientific knowledge, but the remainder used inaccurate or nonspecific scientific knowledge. These findings provide implication for encouraging argumentative writing explaining scientific phenomena regarding epistemic practice.

• 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.

• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Cognitive Science Conference
• /
• 2002.05a
• /
• pp.189-193
• /
• 2002

의식에 관한 가장 흥미 있는 최근의 과학적 작업들 중 철학적으로 문제가 되는 다수는 시각으로부터 나왔으며 그 중 특히 맹시 현상은 심리철학에 있어서 의식, 지각, 그리고 지향성의 개념에 문제를 제기한다. 맹시 환자들은 후두엽 피질의 두뇌 손상으로 인하여 생긴 암점(Scotoma) 때문에 현상적으로 의식적인 과정을 경험할 수 없으면서도 그들의 보이지 않는시야 영역에 대하여 보통 시각을 가진 사람들과 상당히 비슷하게 기능을 발휘한다. 이러한현상은 의식이 행동을 제어하는 데에 과연 인과적 역할을 하는지에 대한 문제들, 심리철학에서 뿌리깊게 논의되어왔던 의식의 기능과 부현상론에 대한 문제를 제기한다. 즉, 맹시 현상은 현상적 의식이 실재하지 않는 것이거나, 존재하더라도 어떤 인과적 효력을 가지지 않는 부수현상적인 것이라는 견해를 강하게 지지하는 것 같다. 이와 함께 인간과 동일한 물리적 구성과 행동을 가지지만 의식적 경험을 결여하는 피조물인 좀비(zombie)의 이론적 가능성이 제기된다. 이를 지지하기 위해서 초맹시(super-blindsight)의 개념과 사례가 제안된다. 이 논문은 맹시 현상을 통해서 현상적 의식의 실재성을 부정하려는 논변들을 반박하고, 의식은 행위의 수행에 관련될 뿐만 아니라 인지에 있어서 중요한 역할을 한다고 논한다. 따라서, 역설적으로 맹시 사례가 오히려 현상적 의식이 인과적 역할을 가진다는 감각질 실재론의 견해를 지지할 수 있다고 논증할 것이다.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.146
• /
• pp.307-328
• /
• 2018

The use of thought experiments has a long history in many disciplines including science. In the field of philosophy, thought experiments have frequently appeared in the pre-existing literature on the contemporary Analytic Philosophy. A thought experiment refers to a synthetic environment where the designer of the experiment-with his or her intuition and imagination-tests common-sense knowledge. It can be understood as a conceptual tool for testing the validity of the common understanding of an issue or a phenomenon. However, we are not certain about the usefulness or efficacy of a thought experiment in knowledge production. The design of a thought experiment is meant to lure readers into believing as intended by the experiment itself. Thus, regardless of the purpose of a thought experiment, many readers who encounter the experiment could feel deceived. In this paper, to analyze the logic of thought experiments and to seek the source of uneasiness the readers and critics may feel about thought experiments, I draw lessons from three renowned thought-experiments: Thomson's 'ailing violinist', Putnam's 'brain in a vat', and Searle's 'Chinese room'. Imaginative thought experiments are usually constructed around a gap between the reality and the knowledge/information at hand. From the three experiments, several lessons can be learned. First, the evidence of the existence of a gap provided via thought experiments can serve as arguments for counterfactual situations. At the same time, the credibility and efficacy of the thought experiments can be damaged as soon as the thought-experiments are carried out with inappropriate and/or murky directions regarding the procedures of the experiment or the background of the study. According to D. R. Hofstadter and D. C. Dennett(1981), the 'knob setting' in a thought experiment can be altered in the middle of a simulation of the experimental condition, and then the implications of the thought experiment change altogether, indicating that an entirely different conclusion can be deduced from thought experiment. Lastly, some pre-suppositions and bias of the experiment designers play a considerable role in the validity and the chances of success of a thought experiment; thus, it is recommended that the experiment-designers refrain from exercising too much of their imagination in order to avoid contaminating the design of the experiment and/or wrongly accepting preconceived/misguided conclusions.