• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.13-24
• /
• 2012

This purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of elementary students' argumentation in science problem solving process. For this study, the two argumentation topics were developed on the basis of Williams and Colomb's argumentation model. The topics of argumentation were the weight of the air and the change of volume according to state of water. The participants of this study were 6th grade students (n=51). Data were analyzed by Williams and Colomb's argumentation model and Kienpointner's argumentation style. The results of this study were as follows: In the argumentation model, most of students had the factors of claim, reason, evidence/data in their statements. But low-achievement students had difficulty in warrant and acknowledge & response. In argumentation style, the frequency of the cause-effect and explanation of example style were higher than other argumentation styles. Some implications were suggested, such as understanding the characteristics of elementary students' argumentation activities and need of educational programs including scientific argumentation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.211-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to investigate science teachers' understandings about scientific argumentation in the classroom. Seven structured interview protocols were developed, asking the definition of scientific inquiry, the differentiation between scientific inquiry and hands-on activity, the opportunity of student argumentation, explicit teaching strategies for scientific argumentation, the critical example of argumentation, the criteria of successful argumentation, and the barrier of developing argumentation. The results indicate that there are differences and similarities in understandings about scientific argumentation between two groups of middle school teachers and upper elementary. Basically, teachers at middle school define scientific inquiry as the opportunity of practicing reasoning skills through argumentation, while teachers at upper elementary define it as the more opportunities of practicing procedural skills through experiments rather than of developing argumentation. Teachers in both groups have implemented a teaching strategy called "Claim-Evidence Approach," for the purpose of providing students with more opportunities to develop arguments. Students' misconception, limited scientific knowledge and perception about inquiry as a cycle without the opportunity of using reasoning skills were considered as barriers for implementing authentic scientific inquiry in the classroom.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.400-413
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to investigate middle school students' processes of argumentation in science lessons and to compare students' argumentation in different contexts (socioscientific context/scientific context). An argumentation-based teaching-learning strategy was used to enhance quality in students' arguments in science lessons. Data were collected from five lessons by video- and audio-recording eight groups of four students each engaging in argumentation. The quality and frequency of students' argumentation was analyzed using an assessment framework based on the work of Toulmin. The findings showed that: (a) there was improvement in the quality of students' argumentation; (b) there were no differences in the structure of argumentation and percentage of explanatory argumentation components as well as dialogic argumentation components in different argumentation contexts. The results of this study showed that students' argumentation can be enhanced with strategic argumentation teaching-learning.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.567-586
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study was to investigate the gifted students' view on argumentation and the aspects of the argumentation in problem-solving type experiment. As a result, very lively argumentation was identified but quality enhancement on argumentation wasn't found over time. Students made frequent use of dialogic argumentation component, and especially, request & response component was highly used. Though usage frequency is low, the component of ground & question on ground was shown in 3rd class, and simple agreement gradually reduced, and reinforcing elaboration & metacognitive question has slightly increased. Also, students' argumentation were closely related to teachers' teaching approaches as some teacher-led steps doesn't appear in students' argumentation. By comparison in steps, 'problem solving activity & result analysis' step included 2 times more argument components than the previous step. We also found that method grouping teams does not almost affect the argumentation of gifted students. By survey results, most students recognized that they experienced free argumentation and this program activate argumentation and 'strange things' or 'difficulty' of program topics are obstacles in vitalization of argumentation. 'Surface growth experiments' was the most lively argumentation topic. The argumentation was lively made in the step of 'finding solution. 'Teachers' scaffolding accelerate the argumentation and help resolve difficulties in argumentation. Thus, students have positive recognition for the argumentation process in the experiments and recognize that argumentation process is needed.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.85-93
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this research was to investigate the change of argumentation of middle school students when they participated in argument tasks with CASE(Cognitive acceleration through science education) programs. Students argumentations were divided into two categories; 'explanatory argumentation' and 'dialogic argumentation'. Several argumentation components were used in their argumentation. Among argumentation components, claim and ground took place more than half of argumentation components. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was lower than the percentage of 'explanatory argumentation'. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was getting higher during CASE intervention. CASE programs had more effect on symmetric group than asymmetric group, however it was unstable. In general, participation ratio in argumentation of the formal operational student was high and the ratio in argumentation of the transitional student was getting higher.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.59 no.1
• /
• pp.78-87
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to investigate the argumentation of middle school students during the argument-based inquiry. A total of sixty eight 8th grade middle school students participated in this study and they performed six argument-based inquiry programs. Data were collected from two of the latest programs by audio-recording and transcription of each group engaging in argumentation. The study findings showed that; first, the most frequent element of argumentation in the all of stages of the two programs was following order: 'claim' and 'request and response' and 'simple agreement'. The most active argumentation was showed at the designing experiments stage and the most inactive was showed at the generating questions stage. Second, as a result of analyzing the argumentation level for each stage of the argument-based inquiry, a high level of argumentation was shown at the claim and evidence stage, and a low level of argumentation was shown at the generating questions stage in the argumentation structure. As a result of the validity of argumentation, the validity of argumentation was the highest level in the claim and evidence stage.

• 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 Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.1007-1026
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to develop analytic framework for dialogic argumentation to show the context and flow visualizing interactions of argumentation, to be able to present quality of argumentation specifically. For this, we formulated a method of the argumentation diagram using feature of diagram simple and structurally visualizing interrelation between argument components, and then quantified quality of argumentation to argument level score on this basis. We have developed the learning material for argumentation about a vertical circular motion and used the obtained translations from applying it in developing the framework. We chose argument statements among full transcript and then coded as Toulmin's argument components, and these codes was effectively arranged and linked to show argumentation diagram. Results by argumentation diagram could be useful understanding of interactive argumentation context and the flow and present frequency, the combination of argument elements, rough qualitative level of argumentation. To quantify argumentation quality, we gave different scores to different link lines reflecting indication of argumentation quality like that diversity of argument component, justification, presence or absence of rebuttals. The process of identification of argument level is very simple, qualitative level of argumentation represented as concrete score could present various and concrete argument level. Developed analytic framework might contribute to argumentation research field, because it can present effectively dialogic argumentation result. Also, various analysis cases might guide designing an effective argumentation practice and circular motion learning.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.76-86
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study is to investigate the characteristics of scientific argumentation and its development in the process of mutual discussion activities by elementary school students in the 5th grade. The results of this study can be summarized as below: First, students used diversity argumentation components for solving the given argumentation theme, however, most students used the assertion or the basis of a simple expression of their own thoughts as a high ratio, and components of a one directional explanatory argumentation process rather than components of a mutual communicative argumentation process. Second, an asymmetric group showed a high-use ratio of communicative argumentation components and achieved argumentation activities harmoniously between a symmetric group and an asymmetric group in organization of groups for solving argumentation themes. It was found that students in the transitional period showed the highest rate of participation within the discussion process. Moreover, they also showed the highest rate of development of discussion skills whilst in the process of using scientific problems. In conclusion, this phenomenon is caused by highlighting the mutual action between the teacher and the student rather than placing an emphasis on the mutual action among students during field instructions.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.286-301
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of argumentation for elementary students' scientific writing. Using nine subjects that were comprised of scientific situations and social scientific situations, this study was applied to four 5th grade students utilizing argumentation and scientific writing. The students' scientific writing and argumentation were collected and analyzed based on three domains of scientific writing: scientific thinking, logic, and creativity. The results from this study are as follows. First, the various contents of argumentation positively affected all of the scientific writing domains in post-argumentation scientific writing. Second, the contents of argumentation appeared in the post-argumentation scientific writing as three different forms: 1) Each individual's scientific concepts, claims, and ideas, which were newly mentioned in the process of argumentation, were expressed, 2) Their classmates' claims, grounds and ideas, which were discussed in the process of argumentation, were expressed through internalization, and 3) Expanded ideas, new claims and inferences based on the argumentation were expressed.