• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2015

Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distinctive features (e.g. interdisciplinary, controversial, value-laden, etc.), Toulmin's model would not fit into the context. Therefore, we attempted to develop an analytical framework for SSI dialogic argumentation by addressing the concepts of 'discourse clusters' and 'discourse schemes.' Discourse clusters indicated a series of utterances created for a similar dialogical purpose in the SSI contexts. Discourse schemes denoted meaningful discourse units that well represented the features of SSI reasoning. In this study, we presented six types of discourse clusters and 19 discourse schemes. We applied the framework to the data of students' group discourse on SSIs (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear energy, etc.) in order to verify its validity and applicability. The results indicate that the framework well explained the overall flow, dynamics, and features of students' discourse on SSI.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.701-725
• /
• 2017

Students need to have opportunities to share their ideas with peers by taking part in the conversation voluntarily that is, by persuading others and reflecting the consequences. Recognizing the importance of this point, this study intended to examine students' argumentation occurring in the process of performing tasks in the math classroom. Also, it tried to explore the types of the argument that students used in the classroom and the reason why they employed them with a focus on 'rebuttal', which is one of the six elements of the argument scheme such as claim, data, warrent, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttal. The analysis of argumentation is based on the five argumentation schemes suggested by Verheij(2005). The experimental class was conducted twice a week with four participants who are third grade middle school students. In the argumentation class students were promoted to address two different kinds of geometrical tasks. After the second session of class, the researcher conducted the semi-structured interview. Accordingly, this study contributes to the existing research by making students to have concrete and active argumentation while obtaining the sound understanding of the argumentation.

• 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 the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.76-90
• /
• 2022

In this study, after applying the argument structure class design program for 20 preservice earth science teachers, we conducted individual in-depth interviews, analyzed the data, and derived a scientific argumentation PCK development model. The scientific argumentation PCK development model consists of three dimensions: Scientific argumentation PCK, PCK ecosystem, and reflective practice. Scientific argumentation PCK is demonstrated in the process of designing or executing classes using argumentation structures as an instructional reasoning tool. PCK ecosystem, consisting of the existing conventional PCK components, is a dimension surrounding the scientific argumentation PCK, and these two dimensions develop by interacting with each other. Reflective practice regulates each dimension and develops it in various ways by mediating the two dimensions of the scientific argumentation PCK and the PCK ecosystem. The conclusions drawn based on the results are as follows: First, preservice science teachers can demonstrate scientific argumentation PCK in the process of design and implementation of lessons using argumentation structures as a pedagogical reasoning tool. Second, it is necessary to develop the PCK for pedagogical reasoning tools such as scientific argumentation PCK in advance for the development of science teachers' PCK, since the scientific argumentation PCK can develop various components of the PCK ecosystem. Finally, it is necessary to use scientific argumentation PCK to support the preservice teacher's reflective practice, seeing that the scientific argumentation PCK promotes the development of PCK ecosystem components by inducing reflective practice.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.321-336
• /
• 2020

We explore automated scoring models of scientific argumentation. We consider how a new analytical approach using a machine learning technique may enhance the understanding of spoken argumentation in the classroom. We sampled 2,605 utterances that occurred during a high school student's science class on molecular structure and classified the utterances into five argumentative elements. Next, we performed Text Preprocessing for the classified utterances. As machine learning techniques, we applied support vector machines, decision tree, random forest, and artificial neural network. For enhancing the identification of rebuttal elements, we used a heuristic feature-engineering method that applies experts' classification of morphemes of scientific argumentation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.8
• /
• pp.824-827
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the changes in structure and contents of different functional genre of science writing during high school using the argumentation structure. For this thesis, seven students of a girls' high school in the national capital region took the argumentation structure instruction for 40 hours for a month. As a result, considerable changes had occurred amid the Explanation genre, the Experiment-recount genre and the Exposition genre. In the Explanation genre and the Experiment-recount genre, noticeable progress had been made in the usage of the argumentation elements and scientific concepts and knowledge evolved in a more rarified and detailed manner. In the Exposition genre, argumentation structure had changed from the simple argumentation structure to the subordination or the multiplex argumentation structure. Simultaneously, it was affirmed that the types and number of the argumentation elements increased significantly along with enlargement of respective scientific concepts and knowledge. Hence, this implies students can determine their understanding of scientific facts and contents during the progress of developing the argumentation structure. It is necessary that students take the well-organized argumentation structure instruction.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.840-862
• /
• 2013

This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin's argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin's argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants' collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMEs and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the flow of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.56-71
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this study is to explore the role and effectiveness of argumentation structure and the developmental characteristics of science PCK with Earth science preservice teachers who used argumentation structure as a pedagogical reasoning tool. Since teachers demonstrate PCK in a series of pedagogical reasoning processes using argumentation structures, we explored the characteristics of future-oriented family resemblance-PCK shown by preservice science teachers using argumentation structures. At the end of the semester, we conducted in-depth interviews with 15 earth science preservice teachers who had experienced lesson design and teaching practice using the argumentation structure. Qualitative analysis including a semantic network analysis was conducted based on the in-depth interview to analyze the characteristics of preservice teachers' family resemblance-PCK. Results include that preservice teachers organized their classes systematically by applying the argumentation structure, and structured classes by differentiating argumentation elements from facts to conclusions. Regarding the characteristics of each component of the argumentation structure, preservice teachers had difficulty finding warrant, rebuttal, and qualifier. The area of PCK most affected by the argumentation structure is the science teaching practice, and preservice teachers emphasized the selection of a instructional model suitable for lesson content, the use of various teaching methods and inquiry activities to persuade lesson content, and developing of data literacy and digital competency. Discussed in the conclusion are the potential and usability of argument structure as a pedagogical reasoning tool, the possibility of developing science inquiry and reasoning competency of secondary school students who experience science classes using argumentation structure, and the need for developing a teacher education protocol using argumentation structure as a pedagogical reasoning tool.

• Annual Conference on Human and Language Technology
• /
• 2023.10a
• /
• pp.474-478
• /
• 2023

논증 마이닝이란 비정형의 텍스트 데이터에서 논증 구조와 그 요소들을 식별, 분석, 추출하는 자연어 처리의 한 분야다. 논증 마이닝의 하위 작업인 주장-증거 쌍 추출은 주어진 문서에서 자동으로 주장과 증거 쌍을 추출하는 작업이다. 본 논문에서는 효과적인 주장-증거 쌍 추출을 위해, 문서 단위의 문맥 정보를 이용하고 주장과 증거 간의 종속성을 반영하기 위한 계층적 LAN 방법을 제안한다. 실험을 통해 서로의 정보를 활용하는 종속적인 구조가 독립적인 구조보다 우수함을 입증하였으며, 최종 제안 모델은 Macro F1을 기준으로 13.5%의 성능 향상을 보였다.

• 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.