• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.194-204
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this literature review is to investigate what kinds of research have been done about scientific inquiry in terms of scientific argumentation in the classroom context from the upper elementary to the high school levels. First, science educators argued that there had not been differentiation between authentic scientific inquiry by scientists and school scientific inquiry by students in the classroom. This uncertainty of goals or definition of scientific inquiry has led to the problem or limitation of implementing scientific inquiry in the classroom. It was also pointed out that students' learning science as inquiry has been done without opportunities of argumentation to understand how scientific knowledge is constructed. Second, what is scientific argumentation, then? Researchers stated that scientific inquiry in the classroom cannot be guaranteed only through hands-on experimentation. Students can understand how scientific knowledge is constructed through their reasoning skills using opportunities of argumentation based on their procedural skills using opportunities of experimentation. Third, many researchers emphasized the social practices of small or whole group work for enhancing students' scientific reasoning skills through argumentations. Different role of leadership in groups and existence of teachers' roles are found to have potential in enhancing students' scientific reasoning skills to understand science as inquiry. Fourth, what is scientific reasoning? Scientific reasoning is defined as an ability to differentiate evidence or data from theory and coordinate them to construct their scientific knowledge based on their collection of data (Kuhn, 1989, 1992; Dunbar & Klahr, 1988, 1989; Reif & Larkin, 1991). Those researchers found that students skills in scientific reasoning are different from scientists. Fifth, for the purpose of enhancing students' scientific reasoning skills to understand how scientific knowledge is constructed, other researchers suggested that teachers' roles in scaffolding could help students develop those skills. Based on this literature review, it is important to find what kinds of generalizable teaching strategies teachers use for students scientific reasoning skills through scientific argumentation and investigate teachers' knowledge of scientific argumentation in the context of scientific inquiry. The relationship between teachers' knowledge and their teaching strategies and between teachers teaching strategies and students scientific reasoning skills can be found out if there is any.

• 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 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems Conference
• /
• 2008.04a
• /
• pp.266-267
• /
• 2008

We argue that agents may benefit from strategic ignorance in argumentation-based negotiation (ABN). We assume our agents are selfish, myopic, and residing in open systems. Some analytical results that can be used for designing agent reasoning on strategic ignorance are provided.

• 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.

• 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.26 no.5
• /
• pp.620-636
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study was to analyze one science teacher's understanding of student argumentation and his explicit teaching strategies for implementing it in the classroom. One middle school science teacher, Mr. Field, and his students of 54 participated in this study. Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews, 60 hours of classroom observations, and two times of students' lab reports for eight weeks. Coding categories were developed describing the teacher's understanding of scientific argumentation and a description of the main teaching strategy, the Claim-Evidence Approach, was introduced. Toulmin's approach was employed to analyze student discourse as responses to see how much of this discourse was argumentative. The results indicated that Mr. Field defined scientific inquiry as the abilities of procedural skills through experimentation and of reasoning skills through argumentation. The Claim-Evidence Approach provided students with opportunities to develop their own claims based on their readings, design the investigation for evidence, and differentiate pieces of evidence from data to support their claims and refute others. During this approach, the teacher's role of scaffolding was critical to shift students' less extensive argumentation to more extensive argumentation through his prompts and questions. The different level of teacher's involvement, his explicit teaching strategy, and the students' scientific knowledge influenced the students' ability to develop and improve argumentation.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.195-205
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of scientific argumentation on argument tasks with incorrect alternative ideas in elementary science classes. The subjects were 41 fourth graders of 2 classes in an elementary school. In the experimental group, argument tasks with pictures including incorrect alternative ideas were suggested in order to facilitate argumentation. Students were asked to perform argumentation with the component of claim, evidence, and reasoning. In the control group, textbook-based traditional instruction was used. The results showed that scientific argumentation activities on argument tasks with incorrect alternative ideas had positive effects on students' science achievement and science-related affective domains. The analyses of students' argumentation revealed that argument tasks with incorrect alternative ideas could facilitate students' participation and exposure of their preconceptions. It also led students to find and connect evidence to support their claims. In some cases, students had difficulty in making appropriate argumentation because of unclear experimental data and/or invalid reasoning. Educational implications were discussed.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.513-531
• /
• 2012

This study was to analyze the characteristic of scientific argumentation in the classes for the gifted of elementary school. The participants of this study were 5 fifth graders and 9 sixth graders, 14 in total, from the basic unit schools for gifted students of J elementary school in Incheon city. And it constituted small scale groups made up of 2~3 students with similar or identical ability in scientific reasoning. It had set up hypothesis for each group before the experiment, and students had a group discussion as a whole after the experiment. Classes were conducted 4 times, all courses were recorded as a sound/video. The ability in scientific reasoning of the students was inspected, making use of SRT II by means of pre-survey, and their argumentation levels were analyzed, utilizing 'Rubric for scientific argumentation course assessment.' As a result, argumentations did not incurred in every class. Analysis in argumentations of the students resulted in low level argumentation. This means argumentation cannot incur based on that with the limit in understanding the principle of experiments over the threshold of textbook no matter that he is an gifted student or not. The student both in formal operational period and transition period (2B/3A), the ability of scientific thinking in upper level, was improved of his argumentative ability in an overall aspect. However, a student of concrete operational period, the ability of scientific thinking in lower level, had argumentation with still lower level even after the experiment at the moment of discussing with the students on the upper level of scientific thinking ability.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.12-26
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of reasoning in which $3^{rd}$ grade elementary school students form ideas, design experiments, and interpret the results to solve problems in small group argumentation. For this purpose, 12 3rd-grade students' small group argumentations including experiments were observed. The researchers analyzed students' pre- and post-open questionnaires, field notes, and video recordings of small group argumentation. The results of the research are as follows. First, in the initial opinion formation process, a hasty unification of opinions and a transformation of inquiry problem occurred. In the design and execution of experiments, verification experiments and unplanned and arbitrary experiments were performed. They also selectively noticed or accepted claims, evidence, interpretation, and criticism. They could distinguish between the condition and the cause, but they were confused by using inaccurate terms and tended to keep the initial opinions when interpreting the results and drawing conclusions.