• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.271-289
• /
• 2020

This study investigates the types of teacher feedback in the process-centered assessment for scientific argumentation. The process-centered assessment visualizes the process of developing scientific argumentation at a group level. Four teachers and 353 high school students participated in this study. We analyzed video recordings, the collaborative modeling-argumentation papers, and teachers' interviews. The findings indicate that the teachers provided feedback on scientific concepts and the development of small group argumentation. We presented a representative case for each category in detail. The study suggests that teachers' efficient use of feedback leads to improvement in students' self-regulation. This study contributes to providing specific and useful guidelines on the use of process-centered assessment for enhancing students' scientific argumentation.

• 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 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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.59-72
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to show that epistemic considerations can be used meaningfully in the argumentation of elementary students, and to provide data on students' epistemic considerations that will be the basis for designing and evaluating scientific argumentation. The epistemic considerations in students' small group argumentations were explored based on Epistemic Considerations in Students' Epistemologies in Practice: EIP' suggested by Berland et al. (2016). The major results of this study are as follows: First, epistemic considerations in elementary school students' small group argumentation appeared in all four aspects: Nature, generality, justification and audience. The epistemic considerations varied according to context in each discussion situation. Second, epistemic considerations did not exist independently. They influenced each other and helped to reveal new types of considerations. The results of this study confirmed that argumentation can be used in elementary school science class. Understanding how students are involved in argumentation and how these epistemic considerations can affect students' argumentation can be helpful to teachers who design and evaluate small group argumentation. Students' achievement level affected epistemic considerations but learning approach types did not affect on. In addition, epistemic considerations may have a positive or negative effect on each other depending on the discussion situation in the process of interaction. So consideration of normative argumentation rules and teaching strategies should be considered in order for epistemic considerations to positively affect each other.

• 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.

• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.18 no.1 s.18
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2004

Current interest in mathematics learning that focuses on understanding, mathematical reasoning and meaning making underscores the need to develop ways of analyzing classrooms that foster these types of learning. In this paper, I show that the constructs of social and sociomathematical norms, which grew out of taking a symbolic interactionist perspective, and Toulmins scheme for argumentation as elaborated for mathematics education by Krummheuer, provide us with means to analyze aspects of explanation justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms, including means through which they can be fostered. Examples from a variety of classrooms are used to clarify how these notions can inform instruction at all levels, from the elementary grades through university-level mathematics.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.97-107
• /
• 2004

Current interest in mathematics learning that focuses on understanding, mathematical reasoning and meaning making underscores the need to develop ways of analyzing classrooms that foster these types of learning. In this paper, I show that the constructs of social and sociomathematical norms, which grew out of taking a symbolic interactionist perspective, and Toulmin's scheme for argumentation, as elaborated for mathematics education by Kummheuer, provide us with means to analyze aspects of explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms, including means through which they can be fostered. Examples from a variety of classrooms are used to clarify how these notions can inform instruction at all levels, from the elementary grades through university-level mathematics.

• 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.28 no.8
• /
• pp.922-936
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) teaching strategy on cognitive levels, science concept understanding, argumentation and writing skills. 131 students attending to co-ed middle school were selected for the study and assigned to the experimental and comparative group. The teaching strategy using SWH was applied to the experimental group, while the traditional one led by teacher's lecturing was applied to the comparative group. The cognitive level test (SRT II) and baseline test were administered before the instruction period. The summary writing test and SRT II test were administered after instruction. The results showed that there was a significant difference between two groups in cognitive levels and science concept understanding, whole argumentation and writing skills. However, there was no significant difference in some argumentation components, including warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal, metacongnitive question. The results of this study showed the possibility of implementation of SWH in science classroom teaching.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.57 no.6
• /
• pp.813-820
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the reading framework on college students' reflective thinking in argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory. A total of 17 first grade college students taking general chemistry laboratory participated in this study, with 7 in the treatment group and the other 10 in the comparative group. For two semesters, a total of 10 argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory programs were applied. The result was shown that the lessons using the reading framework were effective in enhancing the students' reflective thinking. As the study progressed, the treatment group showed more changes toward the high level of reflective thinking than those of the comparative group.