• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.493-503
• /
• 2024

This study investigated the changes in elementary school students' question-generation abilities, science achievements, and attitudes toward science after attending an argument generation class. The study was conducted with 5th grade students of H Elementary School in G-si, Gyeonggi-do, and the following results were noted. First, after attending the argument generation class, the students' question-generation ability significantly improved. Second, there was no significant difference in the students' science achievement. However, according to the teacher's reflection journal, conceptual changes could be seen in the students' thinking as a result of participating in the argument-generation activities, which was confirmed by the students' reports. Third, there was no statistically significant difference in the students' attitudes toward science. However, there was a change in their attitude toward participating in the science classes, and there was a positive change in the number of the students participating in the science classes as a result of the activities.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.1037-1049
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore how the flow of discourse move and their reasoning process in dialogic argumentation during group modeling on excretion. Five groups of three to four students in the second grade of a middle school participated in the modeling practice of a Gifted Center. Analysis was conducted on argumentation during the modeling activity in which students should explain how the waste product (ammonia) leaves the body. It was found that there was a sequential argumentative process-tentative consensus, solving the uncertainty, and consensus. There were several discourse moves - 'claim' and 'counterclaim' in the stage of tentative consensus, 'query' and 'clarification of meaning' in the stage of solving the uncertainty, and 'change of claim' in the stage of consensus. Students participated in the dialogic argumentation by constructing argument collaboratively for reaching a consensus. Critical questioning in the stage of solving the uncertainty and reasoning in the stage of consensus were the impact factors of dialogic argumentation. By answering the critical questions, students changed their claims or suggested new claims by defending or rebutting previous claims. Students justified group claims with diverse argumentation scheme and scientific reasoning to reach a group consensus. These findings have implication for science educators who want to adopt dialogic argumentation in science classes.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.44 no.5
• /
• pp.405-420
• /
• 2024

This study explored the scientific uncertainties raised by students during small-group scientific argumentation and how the uncertainties contributed to the argumentation. A total of 37 seventh-grade middle school students and a teacher participated in the study. They engaged in small-group argumentation on the topic of photosynthesis. We selected three small focal groups, each consisting of 4-5 students, that actively participated in argumentation and raised uncertainties. We conducted small-group interviews with these three focal groups and the teacher. All lesson and interview videos, audio transcripts, student worksheets, and the researcher's field notes were collected and analyzed qualitatively. The findings revealed that there were three major types of uncertainties that contributed to the small-group argumentation. The first type of uncertainties-those about scientific content knowledge-prompted conceptual support from high-achieving peers or the teacher, facilitating the justification of arguments. The second type-uncertainties about data-encouraged students to consider alternative perspectives and arguments. This led students to raise rebuttals and try to reach a consensus, considering the alternatives. Finally, the third type-uncertainties about how to construct scientific arguments-was raised in one small group and prompted epistemic support from the leader, who was more proficient in argumentation. The leader encouraged other students to present their own evidence, rather than just following her opinions. This study provides useful insights for research on scientific uncertainties that students raise in epistemic practices and for developing instructional strategies to support the management of these uncertainties.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.219-234
• /
• 2018

In this study, we explored the possibility of automating the process of analyzing elements of scientific argument in the context of a Korean classroom. To gather training data, we collected 990 sentences from science education journals that illustrate the results of coding elements of argumentation according to Toulmin's argumentation structure framework. We extracted 483 sentences as a test data set from the transcription of students' discourse in scientific argumentation activities. The words and morphemes of each argument were analyzed using the Python 'KoNLPy' package and the 'Kkma' module for Korean Natural Language Processing. After constructing the 'argument-morpheme:class' matrix for 1,473 sentences, five machine learning techniques were applied to generate predictive models relating each sentences to the element of argument with which it corresponded. The accuracy of the predictive models was investigated by comparing them with the results of pre-coding by researchers and confirming the degree of agreement. The predictive model generated by the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (KNN) demonstrated the highest degree of agreement [54.04% (${\kappa}=0.22$)] when machine learning was performed with the consideration of morpheme of each sentence. The predictive model generated by the KNN exhibited higher agreement [55.07% (${\kappa}=0.24$)] when the coding results of the previous sentence were added to the prediction process. In addition, the results indicated importance of considering context of discourse by reflecting the codes of previous sentences to the analysis. The results have significance in that, it showed the possibility of automating the analysis of students' argumentation activities in Korean language by applying machine learning.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.565-575
• /
• 2017

This study analyzes the epistemic considerations and the argumentation level revealed in the discourse of the key concept of natural selection for science-gifted elementary students. The paper analyzes and discusses the results of a three-student focus group, drawn from a cohort of twenty gifted sixth-grade elementary students. Nature, generality, justification, and audience were used to analyze epistemic consideration. Learning progression in scientific argumentation including argument construction and critique was used to analyze students' scientific argumentation level. The findings are as follows: First, Epistemic considerations in discourse varied between key concepts of natural selection discussed. The nature aspect of epistemic considerations is highly expressed in the discourse for all natural selection key concepts. But the level of generality, justification and audience was high or low, and the level was not revealed in the discourse. In the heredity of variation, which is highly expressed in terms of generality of knowledge, the linkage with various phenomena against the acquired character generated a variety of ideas. These ideas were used to facilitate engagement in argumentation, so that all three students showed the level of argumentation of suggestions of counter-critique. Second, students tried to explain the process of speciation by using concepts that were high in practical epistemic considerations level when explaining the concept of speciation, which is the final natural selection key concept. Conversely, the concept of low level of epistemic considerations was not included as an explanation factor. The results of this study suggest that students need to analyze specific factors to understand why epistemological decisions are made by students and how epistemological resources are used according to context through various epistemological resources. Analysis of various factors influencing epistemological decisions can be a mediator of the instructor who can improve the quality and level of the argumentation.

• 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.