• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.203-220
• /
• 2021

We explored the performance improvement method of automated scoring for scientific argumentation. We analyzed the pattern of argumentation using automated scoring models. For this purpose, we assessed the level of argumentation for student's scientific discourses in classrooms. The dataset consists of four units of argumentation features and argumentation levels for episodes. We utilized argumentation clusters and n-gram to enhance automated scoring accuracy. We used the three supervised learning algorithms resulting in 33 automatic scoring models. As a result of automated scoring, we got a good scoring accuracy of 77.59% on average and up to 85.37%. In this process, we found that argumentation cluster patterns could enhance automated scoring performance accuracy. Then, we analyzed argumentation patterns using the model of decision tree and random forest. Our results were consistent with the previous research in which justification in coordination with claim and evidence determines scientific argumentation quality. Our research method suggests a novel approach for analyzing the quality of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.123-135
• /
• 2021

In this study, we apply a lesson design process using an argumentation structure to preservice earth science teachers and analyzed argumentation levels displayed in the lesson plans written by preservice teachers in the process. As a result of the study, the preservice teachers designed a logically structured lesson by reflecting more argumentation components in the final lesson plan than the first one. In addition, in the case of lesson topics in which all argumentation elements were not explicitly presented in textbooks or curriculum, preservice teachers could not clearly reflect some argumentation components in the lesson plan. The conclusions and implications based on the results are as follows: First, it is necessary to use the argumentation structure as a tool to design logical science lessons, considering that argumentation levels of lesson plans written by preservice science teachers were improved by using argumentation structures in instructional design. Next, it is necessary to cultivate the preservice science teacher's ability to reconstruct the curriculum for science lesson design using the argumentation structure since argumentation levels of lesson plans written by preservice science teachers were limited to the argumentation components presented in the textbook and curriculum. Additionally, it is necessary to develop and apply a preservice teacher education program that uses the argumentation structure in the context of actual teaching activities so that preservice science teachers can not only understand argumentation but also improve their class expertise.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the argumentations were affected by the students' characteristics in the small groups. The level of self-concept and science related attitude were examined to the eleventh grade high school students in Daejeon city, and the twelve students were participated for this study. The participants were divided into homogeneous groups and heterogeneous groups. The argumentations under the condition of the interpretations about the experimental results in each small group were recorded by VCR. The recorded data were transcribed, then argumentation levels from transcripts in each small group were analyzed through Mitchell's parameters of argumentation. The results of this study were that the group which had higher level of both self-concept and science related attitudes achieved higher level of argumentation. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to induce students to ask questions and present activities appropriately in order for those who have low self concept and science related attitudes to participate in argumentation.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.106-117
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to explore students' argumentation in perspectives of epistemology and psychology and to find out how teacher can promote students' abilities of developing argumentation. The 60 hours of lessons from the interaction between one science teacher (Mr. Physics, who had 35 years of teaching experience) and his 26 students were observed, transcribed, and analyzed using two different analyzing tools; one is from the perspective of epistemology and the other from the perspective of psychology, which can portray how argumentation is constructed. Mr. Physics created the environment where students could promote the quality of scientific argumentation through explicit teaching strategy, Claim-Evidence Approach. The low level of argumentation was portrayed through examples from students' prior knowledge or experience in the form of an Appeal to the instance operation and the Elaboration reasoning skill. Students' own claims were developed through application of knowledge in a different context in the form of an Induction operation and Generativity reasoning skill. Higher level of argumentation was portrayed through Consistency operation with other knowledge or experience and Explanation reasoning skills based on students' ideas with more active teacher's inputs. The teacher in this study played a role as a helper for students to enact identities as competent "sense makers," as an elaborator rather than evaluator to extend students' ideas, and as a mentor to foster and monitor the students' development of ideas of a higher quality. It is critical for teachers to understand the nature of argumentation, which in turn is connected to their explicit teaching strategy with the aim of providing opportunities where students can understand the science enterprise.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.28 no.5
• /
• pp.495-505
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of evidence used in gifted elementary students' argumentation. The subjects were 15, 5th and 6th grade students selected in the Science Education Institute for Gifted Youth in K University. After the argumentation task was given to students 2 weeks ago, the students grouped themselves in the affirmative and negative and took part in a debate for 2 hours. Their argumentation process was observed, recorded and transcribed for analysis. Transcribed data was given a Protocol Number according to priority and was examined to find out what were the characteristics when students participated in the task. The evidence used in argumentation was graded from level 1 to level 6 according to Perella's Hierarchy of Evidence and the rate of frequency classified by the level was expressed in graph. Students used Level 1- Level 2 evidence above 50% without for or against task. They had weak argumentation making use of low-level evidence such as individual experience, opinion and another person's experience rather than objective evidences. On the other hand, students commented on the lack of opponent's evidence when they could not trust an opponent's evidence. If one team asked the other to present more evidence but could not, they disregarded the question and turned to another topic. And in cases where the opponent team refuted with evidences of high level, the other team just repeated their claim or evaded the rebuttal. The students tended to complete the argument without the same conclusions with some interruptions. The results show that we need an educational programs including scientific argumentation for science-gifted elementary school students.

• School Mathematics
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.423-446
• /
• 2015

This study aims to look into the characteristics of argumentation in the task context of 'Monty Hall problem' at a high school probability class. As a result of an analysis of classroom discourses on the argumentation between teachers and second-year students in one upper level class in high school using Toulmin's argument pattern, it was found that it would be important to create a task context and a safe classroom culture in which the students could ask questions and refute them in order to make it an argument-centered discourse community. In addition, through the argumentation of solving complex problems together, the students could be further engaged in the class, and the actual empirical context enriched the understanding of concepts. However, reasoning in argumentation was mostly not a statistical one, but a mathematical one centered around probability problem-solving. Through these results of the study, it was noted that the teachers should help the students actively participate in argumentation through the task context and question, and an understanding of a statistical reasoning of interpreting the context would be necessary in order to induce their thinking and reasoning about probability and statistics.

• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.411-429
• /
• 2015

In this study we investigated the effects of using GSP in solving geometric problems. Especially we focused the effects of GSP in leveled students' connection of geometry and algebra. High leveled students prefer to use algebraic formula to solve geometric problems. But when they did not know the geometric meaning of their algebraic formula, they could recognize the meaning after using GSP. Middle and low leveled students usually used GSP to obtain hints to solve the problems. For the low leveled students GSP was usually used to understand the meaning of the problem, but it did not make them solve the problem.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.5
• /
• pp.919-929
• /
• 2015

This study aims to develop a modeling-based learning program about geologic structures and to reveal the relationship between the argumentation patterns and levels of students' mental models. Participants included 126 second grade high school students in four sessions of modeling-based learning regarding continental drift, oceanic ridges, transform faults, and characteristics of faults. A modeling-based learning program was implemented in two classes of the experimental group, and teacher-centered traditional classes were carried out for the other students in the comparison group. Science achievement scores and the distribution of students' mental models in experimental and comparison groups were quantitatively compared. The video-taped transcripts of five teams' argumentation were qualitatively analyzed based on the analytic framework developed in the study. The analytic framework for coding students' argumentation in the modeling-based learning was composed of five components of TAP and the corresponding components containing alternative concepts. The results suggest that the frequencies of causal two-dimensional model and cubic model were high in the experimental group, while the frequencies of simple two-dimensional model and simple cross sectional model were high in the comparison group. The higher the frequency of claims, an argumentation pattern was proven successful, and the level of mental model was higher. After the rebuttal was suggested, students observed the model again and claimed again according to new data. Therefore, the model could be confirmed as having a positive impact on students' argumentation process.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.739-751
• /
• 2010

The research reported in this study focused on an analysis of argumentation in the inquiry discourse among pre-service science teachers. For about 3 months, 7 groups of 24 pre-service science teachers participated in an open-ended inquiry and performed 10 inquiry discourses. All discourses were collected by video-recording and transcribed. To analyze features of argumentation discourse, analytic tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern and cognitive argumentation scheme were applied to discussion transcripts. The results were as follows: First, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'meaning unit' was 'claim-warrant-data-rebuttal-backing.' Second, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'dialogue unit' was 'CW-CD-CDW-CWR-CR'. Third, more rebuttals were found than other discussions. Fourth, the second argumentative discussion showed a higher level than the first.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.197-206
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to research pre-service chemistry teachers' inquiry ability and perception on inquiry by analyzing their argument structure. Nine graduating senior students have participated in this study. They have experimented with mass change during state change, which is included in 7th grade science textbook. We have analyzed pre-service teachers' experimental reports using Toulmin's argument model. Also, we have researched their views on science and experiments through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. As results show, various factors have affected pre-services' argument structures; lack of science knowledge and inquiry ability, belief about error, and additive data. This study shows that pre-service teachers' inquiry abilities is insufficient, and it is necessary to review rearrangement of pre-service science teacher curriculum in order to offer inquiry experiments in teacher education program.