• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.63-75
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students' productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone's vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students' epistemological framing and the teacher's responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students' thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher's understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students' ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students' ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students' ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students' productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies to support students' productive framing in science classrooms.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.6
• /
• pp.739-753
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics and limitations of a novice teachers's responsive teaching practice, who framed argumentation productively. One novice teacher and two eighth-grade classes participated in this study. Two of the small student groups with active teacher intervention were selected as focus groups. Students engaged in argumentation activity where they built an argument for hearing if the eardrum was torn. We recorded the class and interviews with the teacher and the students, which were transcribed for use in the analysis of the teacher's responsive teaching practices and epistemological, positional framing. We discovered that teacher thought that he should position himself as a facilitator to encourage students to present ideas clearly and to reach consensus. His framing was consistent in responsive teaching practices. Positioning himself as a facilitator, after he framed the discussion as idea sharing discussion by eliciting and probing students' idea, he framed the discussion as argumentative discussion by taking up students' idea and pointing out disagreement between them. As a result, members of small group 1 engaged in argumentative discussion and reached consensus. However, the teacher's productive framing did not guarantee students' productive argumentation practice. In small group 2, he did not elicit and probe students' ideas successfully. As a result, members of small group 2 did not engaged in argumentative discussions. He responded limitedly to the lack of students' conceptions because of lack of understanding about learners. Also, he mainly attended to students' reasoning, and not to students' framing about argumentation because he considered argumentation only as a tool for conceptual learning. The result of this study will contribute to the establishment of responsive teaching in science classrooms.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to explore teachers' responsive moves that affect students' argumentation practices, and to propose responsive teaching strategies in argumentation-based science classroom. Two teachers, who have not implemented argumentation in their classes, and 57 students, participated in this study. We recorded and transcribed their classes and interviews for the analysis. According to grounded theory approach, we categorized the teachers' responsive moves as focused on either structural or dialogical aspects of argumentation, and qualitatively analyzed their responsive teaching practices in classes. We discovered that the teachers mostly responded to structural rather than dialogical aspects of argumentation, particularly during the students' small-group discussions. This was mainly due to their instructional goals, which focused on the structural aspect of argumentation, and the limited time available for supporting small-groups. Regarding the structural aspects, those responsive moves that explored the students' thinking or facilitated their reasoning helped them to share their thinking and justify their arguments further with recognition of learning goals in the argumentation activities. Regarding the dialogical aspects, which were seen mostly in whole-class discussions, the moves that underlined similarities and differences between arguments, facilitated the sharing of a small-group's arguments with the entire class, or asked a specific student to evaluate the arguments were notable. These moves supported clarification of various small-groups' arguments, which led to reconstruction of coherent argument through evaluation and rebuttal of these arguments, consequentially facilitating dialogical interactions. Based on these results, we proposed responsive teaching strategies in an argumentation-based science classroom.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.162-171
• /
• 2014

The use of evidence is very important in scientific argumentation. This study investigated the types and levels of evidence in scientific argumentation in an elementary science class. 34 fourth graders in a class were selected as subjects, and argumentation was performed in seven lessons on 'Heat transfer and our lives' unit. Small group argumentation was recorded, transcribed and used as data for analyses. The analyses found the following results. First, in regard of the types of evidence, personal evidence dominated over authority-based evidence. Second, in the analysis of the levels of evidence, using inappropriate evidence was found to account for the highest percentage, followed by using appropriate evidence and just arguments without evidence. There were quite a lot of cases of arguments without evidence. It was found that the types and levels of evidence that students used could change depending on the relevance between experiments and argument tasks.

• 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 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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.11-26
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers' responsive practices in whole class discussion after small group argumentation and the underlying epistemological framing. Three teachers and 84 students participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities about the sensory system. We recorded both their discussions in the classes and our interviews with the teachers, which were transcribed for analysis. The results of the analysis showed that the teachers' responsive practices and the epistemological framing were categorized into four types. By framing the discussion as 'reaching the correct answer through discussion,' the teacher focused on whether students' ideas corresponded to scientific concepts and transferred scientific ideas to the students. By framing the discussion as 'eliciting appropriate conceptual resources and developing them into a scientific idea through critical evaluation,' the teacher engaged in the students' discussion as another participant, and considered the small groups' arguments as resources that could develop into scientific concepts. By framing the discussion as 'sharing small groups' arguments,' the teacher responded by asking for clarification of each group's argument, considering it as a valid argument in its own way. By framing the discussion as 'reaching a consented argument through critical evaluation,' the teacher negotiated students' critical evaluation and revision of the arguments. We explored the implications and limitations of each type of responsive practice and considered that the results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies in argumentation activities.

• 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.39 no.5
• /
• pp.637-654
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to investigate the development of scientific conceptual understanding through a process-centered assessment that visualizes the process of scientific argumentation. In this study, 353 high school students and five teachers participated in the scientific argumentation. As a result of analyzing students' utterances on the elements of argumentation, scientific concepts in intragroup were embodied through query and clarification of meaning, and organized through agreement and rebuttal. In intergroup argumentation, scientific concepts were elaborated through query, clarification of meaning, and change of claim. Teachers were able to understand the process of argumentation through small-group activity sheets where the process was visualized, thereby providing feedback and improving the class. Based on the results, the scientific argumentation of visualizing the process was found not only to allow students to perform self-assessment and peer-assessment but also to help teachers understand the argumentation process. The findings of this study guide process-centered assessment in the science curriculum and are expected to contribute to the promotion of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.212-221
• /
• 2006

The purposes of this study were to examine the characteristics of teacher help in small group Thinking Science(TS) activities and analyze the way students respond to teacher help. For this study, twenty-four 5th grade and twenty-four 7th grade students were selected, to undertake TS activities. Out of the 8 activities students participated in, the verbal interactions in activity 4 and 6, by students in four small groups, which incorporated relatively active argumentation was analyzed. Students' cognitive level was identified through a science reasoning task and the students were grouped heterogeneously according to their cognitive level. This study showed that teachers predominately used simple confirmation questions in preference to metacognitive question. Also, teacher help varied according to one's personal traits, work experience and degree of activity recognition. It was discovered that when the teacher provided student appropriate metacognitive questions and sufficient feedback, students actively engaged in argumentation. On the other hand, when the teacher asked simple confirmation questions and interfered in the activity, students did not participate in argumentation actively.