• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.9
• /
• pp.1470-1488
• /
• 2012

This study examined changes in the quality of written arguments produced by freshman students in general chemistry laboratory classes using the SWH approach over a semester; difference in the quality of written argument between the original writing template (year I) and the extended writing template (year II); and any difference between Total Argument and Holistic Argument scores. 140 writing samples from 14 students on the year I and 228 samples from 19 students on the year II were collected. Results indicated that despite fluctuations, the students were producing stronger argument by the end of semester compared to the beginning of the semester. Original SWH template group received significantly higher argument scores than extended SWH template group. For the most of year I laboratory investigations, there was no significant difference in the quality of argument between Total Argument and Holistic Argument scores. An implication of this study would be to provide opportunities for students to practice constructing arguments using the original SWH writing template including questions, claims, evidence, and reflection.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.2
• /
• pp.347-360
• /
• 2016

This study focused on the use of student assessment activities to investigate the impact on reflective thinking in Argument-based Inquiry. The participants of the study were 166 10th grade students (six classes). Over one semester, students participated in five ABI programs that we developed. The experimental group (84 students) was taught Argument-Based Inquiry with students' self and peer assessment activities. The comparative group (82 students) was taught without the activities. We analyzed students' reflective writing to investigate how the student assessment activities influenced the students' reflective thinking. We also used the interviews and surveys to examine the validity of student assessment activities. According to analysis of the reflective writing, the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score than the comparative group in the 3rd and 5th writing. The ratio of students who showed a metacognitive level of reflection with regard to analysis of inquiry process, understanding of learning, and change of thinking increased in both groups, but the experimental group's ratio was higher than the comparative group's. The result of analysis of the reflective practice showed that the ratio of the experimental group's students who reached the metacognitive level of reflection in their writing increased, while the comparative group's decreased. Therefore, we conclude that student assessment activities can create a learning environment that facilitates student participation, increases the students' engagement in the learning process, and can be used as a tool to scaffold learning.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.62 no.3
• /
• pp.203-213
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of student assessment activities on claim and evidence formation in argument-based inquiry (ABI) for high school students. The participants of the study were 166 grade 10 students from six different classes in the same high school. The experimental group (84 students) was taught Argument-Based Inquiry with students' self and peer assessment activities. The comparative group (82 students) was taught without the activities. Over one semester students participated in five ABI programs that we developed. According to the analysis of the claim and evidence from groups, the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score than the comparative group. The result of analysis of students' assessment in the experimental group, the frequency about accurate and sufficient evidence revealed to be high and students assessed whether peers' claims fit with the evidence and whether peers' explanations of the evidence's validity was sufficient. Students' answers in the survey and interviews showed that the students though they could improve the accuracy of their ideas, appropriateness of their evidence, and the method of presenting evidence based on the assessment results.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.7
• /
• pp.1329-1342
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between the change of beginning teachers' beliefs about a lesson and that of teaching practice and argument-based inquiry using science writing. Participants were three science teachers (A, B, and C) from different middle schools. Classroom observation and interview data were collected and transcribed for analysis. A Summary Writing test was also administered to examine whether there was an improvement in students' learning. The results indicated that the interaction between the teachers and their students developed, which is concluded as an improvement in the teaching practice. Teacher A and B also reported that teacher-student interaction had improved. Teacher A and C came to understand that argument-based inquiry using science writing classes constituted learner-centered instruction. The result from the Summary Writing Test showed the impact of the changes in teaching practice and in teachers' awareness of students' learning as well as produced meaningfully higher scores than compared groups on the rhetorical structure of all the specific areas in teacher A's school and on the scientific concept at B and C's schools.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.66 no.5
• /
• pp.390-404
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics and changes in epistemic thinking when an argument-based inquiry science class was applied in no face-to-face and face-to-face situations. Participants of this study were 113 8th grade students of four classes from a coed educational middle school in a metropolitan city. Data collection was made over one semester during which ten argument-based inquiry science lessons on five subjects were conducted in both no face-to-face and face-to-face context. As a result of comparing and analyzing students' epistemic thinking in the argumentation of each group's generating question stage, the no face-to-face classes showed higher understanding of contents and more evidence suggestion validity than face-to-face classes did. Claim validity and categories of process in argumentation were higher in face-to-face classes than No face-to-face classes. Students were able to improve their understanding of knowledge through writing by discussing rather than direct communication in no face-to-face situations, and in face-to-face situations, students showed that their thoughts were influenced by interpersonal relationships with the group members.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.8
• /
• pp.787-794
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study was to examine the science writing and perception of students who experienced the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach. One hundred and eight grade 11 students were assigned to an experimental group, while 99 grade 12 students were assigned to a comparative group in their earth science classes. Students' science writings on two science topics were scored using an analytic rubric developed in this study. The comparison of experimental and comparative groups in science writing was carried out using an independent two samples t-test. Students' perception on the instruction was examined using an open-ended survey. Science writing by the experimental group scored significantly higher than that by the comparative group, except for the big idea of 'green energy'. For six concepts in 'green energy' and four concepts in 'plate tectonics, there were more students in the experimental group than the comparative group who indicated them in their science writing. Students' perception on the instruction was positive in that they mentioned planning and conducting inquiry, citing of claims and evidence, and developing inquiry questions were helpful in science learning. The results of this study imply that the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach should be implemented in science classrooms for students to develop a conceptual framework for science.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.569-580
• /
• 2013

This study examined how a Structured Reading Framework (SRF) is related to improving students' critical thinking ability in an argument-based inquiry approach, called the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. A total of 75 $8^{th}$ graders participated in the study, with 34 in the control group and 41 in the treatment group. The gains in critical thinking skills were compared between two groups, and relationships among the components of the reading framework and the critical thinking skills were explored at the group level. Result indicates that the treatment group who used the SRF had larger gains in critical thinking scores than control group who used the Original Reading Framework (ORF). In addition, results show that the correlations between Reading Framework (RF) components and critical thinking scores are statistically significant in the treatment group, while no correlations exist in the control group. It appears that using the SRF have an impact on developing students' critical thinking ability by providing a scaffold to assist argumentation practice.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.763-773
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of Argument-Based Inquiry (ABI) strategy on student's character competency. For this study, 51 grade 11 students (two classes) were selected to the role assignment (ABI-R group) and 46 students (two classes) were assigned to the non-role assignment group (ABI group). In the result, the role assignment group (ABI-R group) showed a statistically higher change in character competency than the group without role assignment (ABI group). Particularly, the ABI-R group has significantly higher grade than ABI group in empathy, responsibility, and respect among the sub-factors of character competency. However, in the case of the cooperation factor of character competency, the ABI group showed statistically significant higher grade than ABI-R group. The results of this study showed that Argument-Based Inquiry (ABI) as teaching and learning strategies in science can contribute to the enhancement of human character competency. In addition, we suggest that students should be actively involved in the class through role assignment, but it is necessary to present the class situation so that they can be actively engaged according to the problem situation rather than being fixed in a given role.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.60 no.1
• /
• pp.59-68
• /
• 2016

The cultivation of scientific literacy in recent science education can be improved by experiencing and understanding scientific inquiry by which scientific knowledge is formed. The National Research Council(NRC) released the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) including 8 practices of science that help students experience scientists' inquiry and subdividing achievement standards to perform 8 practices of science into by grade clusters. This study was intended to examine science inquiry activities included in 4 high school chemistry II textbooks developed by the 2009 revised curriculum using the 8 scientific practices and their achievement standards for 9th-12th grade. The science inquiry activities and the science practices included in the 4 textbooks were 173 and 678. The science practices included in the inquiry activities of 4 textbooks included the most ‘analyzing and interpreting data.’ The ‘engaging in argument from evidence’, ‘Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information’ were less than other practices. The ‘asking questions and defining problem’ and ‘developing and using models’ were not nearly included in the 4 high school chemistry II textbooks.

• 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.