• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.64 no.5
• /
• pp.291-303
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to explore the patterns of college students' dialogic argumentation in the context of nanotechnology issues, and to compare these patterns based on their idiocentrism and allocentrism. Nanotechnology represents the characteristics of socioscientific issues in that it is widely used in various fields, but at the same time, it includes the likelihood of negative effects. 33 college students who enrolled in science-related course participated in this study. Participants were divided into idiocentric groups and allocentric groups based on the INDCOL scores, and they participated in group discussions on nanotechnology. All discussions were audiotaped and analyzed using the framework of discourse clusters and schemes. Results showed that participating students engaged in dialogic argumentation with the process of exchanging of individual perspectives, exploration of different perspectives, and coordination and negotiation; specifically, they spent most of their time in exploring different values and perspectives regarding nanotechnology. Results also indicated the differences in discourse clusters and discourse schemes between idiocentric and allocentric groups. Allocentric groups more often negotiated to settle on a group decision than idiocentric groups did, and discourse schemes in their negotiation process were slightly different from the ones in idiocentric groups.

• 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 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.