• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.895-910
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students' progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students' group norms related to participation were developed, and the students' epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students' group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others' arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

• 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.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the argumentations were affected by the students' characteristics in the small groups. The level of self-concept and science related attitude were examined to the eleventh grade high school students in Daejeon city, and the twelve students were participated for this study. The participants were divided into homogeneous groups and heterogeneous groups. The argumentations under the condition of the interpretations about the experimental results in each small group were recorded by VCR. The recorded data were transcribed, then argumentation levels from transcripts in each small group were analyzed through Mitchell's parameters of argumentation. The results of this study were that the group which had higher level of both self-concept and science related attitudes achieved higher level of argumentation. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to induce students to ask questions and present activities appropriately in order for those who have low self concept and science related attitudes to participate in argumentation.

• 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 Chemical Society
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.79-88
• /
• 2006

study was to explore the patterns and the characteristics of students' interactive argumentation in the middle school science classes. The data were collected by observing and audiotaping the small-group discussions and the transcribed data were analyzed through the lens of Toulmin's argument frame. As the results, the three argumentation patterns, which could be combined different ideas with or without their warrants, were presented. In the first pattern, the argumentation including the claim and its warrant without any different ideas, the students argumentation did not have any conflict with each other in the discussions. In the second, the argumentation of different ideas without their warrants, the different ideas did not affect the claim. In the last, the argumentation of different ideas with their warrants, the students elaborated the claim through collaborative argumentation in search for the warrant. To understand and improve student discussions in the science classrooms, conclusion and implications were discussed based on the results.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.216-233
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study was to identify the aspects of elementary school students' interactions shown conceptual changes in collaborative scientific argumentation. Fifty sixth graders of an elementary school in Jeonju were selected for this study. Ten small groups consisting of five students each were organized evenly with considerations of their gender, science achievement, scientific discussion experience and degree of communication apprehension. 'Food web and Ecosystem' and 'Change of Moon shape' were selected as the proper topics of collaborative scientific argumentation in terms of difficulty to be understanded by the $6^{th}$ graders. The small group's dialogue was recorded. The students' activity sheets, field note and interviews of the participants were collected. Based on the collected data, we analyzed the aspect of small groups' interaction shown conceptual change of each student. The result of this study was as follows: The interaction aspects of the small group of students who showed conceptual changes in the collaborative scientific discussion have a tendency of showing their discussion responses, explanation-opposition discourse, the use of rigorous criteria, their collaborative attitude and participation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.5
• /
• pp.694-708
• /
• 2011

In this study, we developed tasks including cognitive scaffolding for students to explain scientific phenomena using valid evidences in science classroom and sought to investigate how tasks influence the development of small group scientific argumentation. Heterogeneous small groups in gender and achievement were organized in one classroom and the tasks were applied to the class. Students were asked to write down their own ideas, share individual ideas, and then choose the most plausible opinion in a group. One group was chosen for investigating the effect of tasks on the development of small group argumentation through the analysis of discourse transcripts of the group in 10 lessons, students' semi-structured interview, field note, and students' pre- and post argument tests. The discrepant argument examples were included in the tasks for students to refute an argument presenting evidences. Moreover, comparing opinion within the group and persuading others were included in the tasks to prompt small group argumentation. As a result, students' post-argument test grades were increased than pre-test grades, and they argued involving evidences and reasoning. The high level of arguments has appeared with high ratio of advanced utterances and lengthening of reasoning chain as lessons went on. Students had elaborate claims involving valid evidences and reasoning by reflective and critical thinking while discussing about the tasks. In addition, tasks which could have various warrants based on the data led to students' spontaneous participation. Therefore, this study has significance in understanding the context of developing small group argumentation, providing information about teaching and learning context prompting students to construct arguments in science inquiry lessons in middle school.

• Korean Medical Education Review
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.101-108
• /
• 2017

When participating in problem-based learning (PBL), it is important for medical students to generate claims and provide justifications for their claims in small group discussions. This study aimed to investigate the effect of argumentation instruction on medical student learning experiences with PBL. A total of one hundred first-year preclinical students from Inje University College of Medicine, who had attended argumentation instruction, participated in this study. All of the participants completed a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire regarding their learning experiences with PBL, before and after the argumentation instruction. The questionnaire comprised 22 items with eight subcategories: argumentation activity, reflection, integration of basic and clinical science, identification of lack of knowledge, logical thinking, self-directed study, communication, and attitude toward discussion. The collected data were analyzed through a paired-sample t-test. The results of this study found that the argumentation instruction promoted the preclinical students' experiences with argumentation activities, reflection, an integration of basic and clinical science, the identification of their lack of knowledge, logical thinking, and self-directed study, and it increased positive attitudes toward group discussion. The findings suggest argumentation instruction can enhance medical student group discussions and help students achieve the objectives of PBL, including acquisition of basic and clinical science knowledge and development of clinical reasoning and self-directed learning abilities, which can highlight the meaningful learning experiences students have with PBL.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.115-128
• /
• 2014

Students' argumentation during science inquiry should be regarded important as it could help students to make meaningful connections between theories and experiments and to make scientific claims based on evidences. In this study, elementary science-gifted students' argumentation during small group inquiry was analyzed according to inquiry process. There were three stages of argumentation during students' inquiry. The first argumentation was to predict what would happen(Prediction stage). In this stage, the scientific problem was presented by concept cartoon as a way to start and to facilitate students' argumentation. The second argumentation was to design an experiment to solve the problem(Planning stage) and the third was to interpret the result of experiment(Interpretation stage). The discourse move, level of grounds and their relationship were analyzed to find the characteristics of argumentation during science inquiry. In terms of discourse move, 'Asking for opinion' was the most frequent whereas 'Claim' or 'Rebuttal' were rare. Students tended to listen to or ask others' opinion rather than provide their own claims or critics on others' opinion. 'Rebuttal' was shown a few times only during prediction and planning stage. There was no single 'Rebuttal' during interpretation stage. Students tended to easily accept or agree other student's interpretation of data instead of arguing their own ideas. In terms of level of grounds, students mostly provided their ideas without any attempt to justify their position. Especially during planning stage, students tended to suggest or decide ways of measuring or controlling variables without any grounds. They used evidences only a few times during prediction stage. In terms of relation between discourse move and level of grounds, students provided grounds most frequently when they dispute others' claims. The level of grounds were higher when they advocate or clarify their own or others' ideas than when they claim their ideas. The result of this study showed that the quality of elementary science-gifted students' argumentation during science inquiry was undesirable in many ways. Implications for scaffolding and facilitating argumentation during science inquiry were discussed.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.419-429
• /
• 2015

In this study, we explored students' epistemological framing during scientific argumentation and how interactions among group members influenced group argumentation. Twenty-one gifted science students divided into groups of three or four participated in this study. Students' discussions related to data interpretation concerning the rate of photosynthesis were analyzed. Students' activities were videotaped in groups so the discourse could be transcribed and students' behavioral cues analyzed. Students' epistemological framing has been identified through analysis of their speech and behavioral responses to the anomalous data from the inquiry process. Subsequently, their sources of warrant and group argumentation levels were explored. We found out that group members framed the inquiry in two ways: "understanding phenomena" and "classroom game." Group members whose framing was "understanding phenomena" required other members to justify the anomalous data by examining its validity and reliability, which conclusively demonstrated a high level of argumentation. On the other hand, when group members used "classroom game" to frame their argumentation, they did not recognize the necessity of explaining the anomalous data; rather, these students used simple empirical justification to explain the data, reflecting a low level of argumentation. When students using different epistemological framing disagreed over interpretations of anomalous data throughout the discussion, clashes ensued that resulted in emotional conflict and a lack of discussion. Students' framing shifts were observed during the discussion on which group leaders seemed to have a huge influence. This study lays the foundation for future work on establishing productive framing to prompt scientific argumentation in science classrooms.