• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.66 no.1
• /
• pp.50-60
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to explore the Nature of Argumentation in Science education (NAS). For this purpose, we collected previous studies conducted on the argumentation in science education, and then collected previous studies were analyzed to extract the overall characteristics of argumentation in science education. Based on the results, an expert review was conducted, then the nature of argumentation in science education was finally derived to a total of seven components: 'evidence based', 'linguistic interaction', 'context dependency', 'public decision-making', 'tentative agreement', 'methodological diversity', and 'enculturation of scientific culture'. Understanding the nature of argumentation in science education can promote the practice of argumentation in science learning. Therefore, further studies will be necessary to conduct research to expand and refine the nature of argumentation in science education in order to effectively practice it in science learning.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.6
• /
• pp.1019-1030
• /
• 2015

This study examined the development of a teacher's teaching practice and identified argumentation-specific pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and the influence of the argumentation-specific PCK on teaching practice in an argumentation classroom. The teacher has a Ph.D degree in science education, a 19-year teaching career, and no experience in instructing in an argumentation classroom. The developed program consists of nine lessons regarding photosynthesis for 7th graders. The teacher participated in a collaborative reflection with researchers after each lesson once a week and five times in total, which lasted for thirty minutes. All of the lessons were video- and audio-recorded and the transcript of lessons and collaborative reflection, pre- and post-survey related to argumentation, and researchers' journals were analyzed. Analysis of the data showed that the teacher emphasized group interaction showing utterances of listening, evaluating arguments, counter-arguing/debating, and reflecting on argument process after the fourth lesson although the teacher focused on individual argumentation showing utterances of talking, knowing meaning of argument, and justifying with evidence in the first three lessons. Also, the argumentation-specific PCK, which was identified with the understanding of students, nature of argumentation and argumentation task strategy, also influenced the development of teaching practice. The teacher comprehended the students' challenges in argumentation, developed her understanding of the nature of argumentation from an individual plane to social plane, and demonstrated a deep understanding of the task strategy by voluntarily joining in modifying the argumentation tasks.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.402-411
• /
• 2010

The purposes of this study are to analyze an argumentation between an astronomers group and a counter astronomers group that have concluded different results by using the same methods and to find an implication for applying to school science. For this study, two science research papers, which have been interpreted differently, were selected and analyzed in spite of observing same area in Titan and using same data process method. Their key issues are involved in interpretation and explanation, and the credibility of observed data. From this result, scientific argumentation accompanied with the credibility evaluation about the justification process of scientific explanation and experiment results needs to be developed.

• 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.37 no.4
• /
• pp.565-575
• /
• 2017

This study analyzes the epistemic considerations and the argumentation level revealed in the discourse of the key concept of natural selection for science-gifted elementary students. The paper analyzes and discusses the results of a three-student focus group, drawn from a cohort of twenty gifted sixth-grade elementary students. Nature, generality, justification, and audience were used to analyze epistemic consideration. Learning progression in scientific argumentation including argument construction and critique was used to analyze students' scientific argumentation level. The findings are as follows: First, Epistemic considerations in discourse varied between key concepts of natural selection discussed. The nature aspect of epistemic considerations is highly expressed in the discourse for all natural selection key concepts. But the level of generality, justification and audience was high or low, and the level was not revealed in the discourse. In the heredity of variation, which is highly expressed in terms of generality of knowledge, the linkage with various phenomena against the acquired character generated a variety of ideas. These ideas were used to facilitate engagement in argumentation, so that all three students showed the level of argumentation of suggestions of counter-critique. Second, students tried to explain the process of speciation by using concepts that were high in practical epistemic considerations level when explaining the concept of speciation, which is the final natural selection key concept. Conversely, the concept of low level of epistemic considerations was not included as an explanation factor. The results of this study suggest that students need to analyze specific factors to understand why epistemological decisions are made by students and how epistemological resources are used according to context through various epistemological resources. Analysis of various factors influencing epistemological decisions can be a mediator of the instructor who can improve the quality and level of the argumentation.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.160-175
• /
• 2004

This study examined the knowledge and practices of scientific inquiry displayed by three student teachers and two beginning teachers at secondary levels. Observations using the instrument of OTOP designed by the research team of OCEPT (Oregon Collaborative for Excellent in the Preparation of Teachers) generalized similar teaching strategies of scientific inquiry between student and beginning teachers, such as using group work for students' first hand experience, using concrete materials for experimentation or visual tools for demonstration, using questions for factual knowledge mainly without opportunities to understand how scientific knowledge is constructed. Those scientific inquiry activities were very confirmative ones to follow the steps without opportunities of understanding nature of science or nature of scientific inquiry. However, all participants in this study hold knowledge of scientific inquiry envisioned by the National Science Education Standards [NSES] (NRC, 1996), where students identify their hypothesis, use critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations through argumentation as well as experimentation. An inconsistent relationship between participating teachers knowledge and practices about scientific inquiry resulted from their lack of pedagogy skills of implementing it in the classroom. Providing opportunities for these teachers to reflect on their beliefs and practices about scientific inquiry was recommended for the future study. Furthermore, increasing college faculty interest in new teaching approaches for upgrading the content knowledge of student teachers and beginning teachers was recommended as a solution, since those teachers showed evidence of influence by college faculties at universities in their pedagogy skills.

• 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 Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2013

20 preservice teachers at college level participated in this study and interacted with students at elementary and middle school levels during science camp offered by science center in Taiwan. Preservice teachers displayed moderate (above the average, 4 point out of 5) understandings about scientific literacy and scientific views in all aspects of the nature of science before the camp. Then, the researchers designed science camp programs which were expected to promote students' scientific literacy; scientific knowledge, inquiry skills for experimentation as well as for argumentation, affective domain such as the attitude toward science and the understandings about nature of science and the relationship among STS (Science-Technology-Society), all of which were embedded in the programs. Preservice teachers seemed to perceive scientific literacy pretty well (over 4 point) before the camp, however, preservice teachers' understandings about scientific literacy were not much scored (around 3 point, but still moderate scores of average) as expected after concrete inquiry activities. The reasons why this happened could be that preservice teachers were not trained to employ theory into the context to be more practical or the researchers did not develop camp program which included the aspect of scientific literacy successfully. The discussion and implication were made in teacher education in that preservice teachers must be prepared how to bridge theory into practice, and informal science education in that educators at science centers must be trained to be experts in providing the envisioned educational programs to meet the goal of science education, scientific literacy.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.238-252
• /
• 2020

In this study, we analyzed the types of rebuttals in the argument structure of learning contents in lesson plans constructed by Earth science preservice teachers, and then we explored examples of how they responded to resolving the rebuttal. As a result of analyzing preservice teachers' assignments, discussions, and interviews collected during a total of 20 hours of classes and group discussions for 5 weeks, all 5 types of rebuttals suggested by Verheij (2005) were identified. Through the data analysis, a total of 18 rebuttal cases derived, and these cases were classified into 3 types according to how preservice teachers solve the rebuttals in class. The conclusions and implications based on the results are as follows: First, this study provided empirical data that the thinking process of validating core elements of argumentation and processes of argumentation is actively taking place in preservice teachers' lesson planning using the argument structure, and expanded the scope of application of argumentation in science education research. Second, the argument structure of learning contents should be used to help teachers to come up with strategies to induce students' curiosity and devotion to learn science contents. Third, preservice teachers should have the opportunity to think about the nature of science, including the variability and uncertainty of scientific knowledge when they discover rebuttals and develop solutions to them. Based on these conclusions, implications and suggestions for science education and further research were suggested.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2019

This study aims to explore students' epistemic practices and considerations, which are explained as underlying epistemic thoughts that guide their epistemic practices, during argumentation in science classrooms. We also investigated how collaborative reflection facilitated the development of such epistemic considerations. Two seventh-grade classes participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities and collaborative reflection after classes. A group with students' change in epistemic aspects and the influence of collaborative reflection clearly revealed from their practices was chosen as a focus group. We recorded their class discussions and collaborative reflections with the researchers. Transcriptions of the recordings and checklists we collected during the collaborative reflections were used for analysis. Results showed evident changes in the students' epistemic considerations and practices and four factors facilitating such developments were identified. First, the researcher facilitating the students to recognize each other as collaborators during collaborative reflection led development of epistemic considerations on "audience using the knowledge products." Second, the collaborative reflection facilitated construction of context for peer interactions where the students encouraged each other to participate in the discussion, resulting in the development of other students' epistemic considerations on "justifications in knowledge products." Third, the items provided on the checklists explicitly delineated expectations on their practices in argumentation, also facilitating development of epistemic considerations. Lastly, the students' imitation of the researcher's pattern of discourse facilitated construction of causal explanation and development of epistemic considerations on "nature of the knowledge products." This study will contribute to the construction of strategies that develop students' epistemic considerations and productive epistemic practices in argumentation.