• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to develop collaboration scripts as an instructional means to facilitate argumentation in computer-supported collaborative learning, and to analyze their effects. To develop collaboration scripts for argumentation, researchers used activity theory as a conceptual framework and refined the design principles by design-based research. Using LAMS, collaboration scripts for argumentation were developed based on the ArgueGraph. To examine their effects, 72 participants were divided into two groups by internal scripts and randomly allocated to one of three external scripts. Applying mixed methods, researchers analyzed argumentation competence related to the cognitive aspect, examined self-efficacy related to the motivational aspect, and identified the factors influencing collaborative learning processes and outcomes. Researchers found that the internal script is a critical factor to determine the dimensions, degrees, and duration of improvement in argumentation competence. That is, learners with higher internal scripts improved highly in the quality of single arguments, while learners with lower internal scripts improved continuously in the quality of argumentation sequences. The effects of the external scripts varied with the internal script levels and supporting periods. Besides, collaboration scripts for argumentation had positive effects on learners' self-efficacy, and learners with higher internal scripts had better self-efficacy. The factors influencing collaborative learning processes and outcomes showed different results depending on the learning context. Therefore, when scripting learner's interaction in CSCL, researchers should design the scripts adaptable to a natural context of activities.

• 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 Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.441-450
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of elementary gifted students' argumentation and examine the special features of argumentation founded in scientific inquiry. 28 students were selected in the special education center for the gifted in K National University. They were organized 8 groups of 3~4 students and engaged in scientific inquiry activity. The researcher wasn't involved in students' inquiry activity and argumentation except for the guiding and introducing their activity. In the first session, each group carried out the experiment 'Putting a heated can in the water' and then, the students discussed to probe their experimental results and build their explanation. In the second session, each group presented their experiment results and evidence from their experiment justifying their claims, and had questions from other groups. The protocol data during 8 groups' argumentations were analyzed using 'Rubric for Scientific Argumentation Assessment' (Yang et al., 2009) in three domains- the form, content and attitude. As a result, in form domain, almost groups were rated 2 points due to their argument without rebuttal on the subcategory of 'composition', but they got a good grade above 3 points in subcategory such as 'claim', 'ground', and 'conclusion'. In content domain, almost groups got points above 3 points. In attitude domain, there were some striking contrast between each groups. Six groups got good score more than 4 points on the subcategory of openness, but two groups, they alleged and got score below 3 point. While the 6 groups of all got 4 points in the aspect of participation, 3 groups got 3 points lower than because they only just asserted and not interact with other groups. Throughout the argumentation, two features were found that; as time goes by, arguments were refined; Students tended to use their prior to knowledge rather than evidence such as experimental data in making claims and conclusions.

• 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.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.207-231
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of Critical Thinking Strategy supporting argumentation activities between learners. The research question is whether the form of Critical Thinking Strategy offered to support meaningful interaction of collaborative argumentation between learners influences the knowledge acquisition, learning outcome, and student satisfaction. For this, the collaboration outcome of the group, the level of individual knowledge acquisition, the level of students satisfaction were measured as outcome of argumentation activity and their differences analyzed. This study concludes the following: A comparison of the group that was provided with Critical Thinking Strategy (test group) and the group provided with general argumentation scaffolds (compared group) showed there wasn't statistically significant differences in the quality of the learning outcome of collaboration between the groups and in students satisfaction. But there was significant difference in the degree of individual acquisition depending on the offering of scaffolding for Critical Thinking. Therefore, as premised in this study, supporting meaningful mutual interaction between learners during collaborative argumentation using Critical Thinking Strategy has a positive influence on the individual acquisition of domain knowledge. The group provided with scaffolding for Critical Thinking gained higher effect in the degree of knowledge sharing and individual acquisition of domain knowledge compared to the group provided with general argumentation scaffolding.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.567-586
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study was to investigate the gifted students' view on argumentation and the aspects of the argumentation in problem-solving type experiment. As a result, very lively argumentation was identified but quality enhancement on argumentation wasn't found over time. Students made frequent use of dialogic argumentation component, and especially, request & response component was highly used. Though usage frequency is low, the component of ground & question on ground was shown in 3rd class, and simple agreement gradually reduced, and reinforcing elaboration & metacognitive question has slightly increased. Also, students' argumentation were closely related to teachers' teaching approaches as some teacher-led steps doesn't appear in students' argumentation. By comparison in steps, 'problem solving activity & result analysis' step included 2 times more argument components than the previous step. We also found that method grouping teams does not almost affect the argumentation of gifted students. By survey results, most students recognized that they experienced free argumentation and this program activate argumentation and 'strange things' or 'difficulty' of program topics are obstacles in vitalization of argumentation. 'Surface growth experiments' was the most lively argumentation topic. The argumentation was lively made in the step of 'finding solution. 'Teachers' scaffolding accelerate the argumentation and help resolve difficulties in argumentation. Thus, students have positive recognition for the argumentation process in the experiments and recognize that argumentation process is needed.

• 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.24 no.6
• /
• pp.1216-1234
• /
• 2004

School science practical work is often criticized as lacking key elements of authentic science, such as peer argumentation or debate through which social consensus is obtained. The purpose of this paper is to review the recent studies about the argumentation and to explore the conditions and the model of argumentative scientific inquiry, which is specially designed open inquiry in order to facilitate students' peer argumentation. For this purpose, a theoretical discussion for the argumentative scientific inquiry as the way of authentic inquiry in schools was developed. The conditions for argumentative scientific inquiry were found to be the following: multiple arguments, students' own claims, opportunities for oral and written argumentation, equal status of debaters, and community of cooperative competition. For these conditions, the argumentative scientific inquiry was organized into experiment activities and argumentation activities. During argumentation activity, students should be guided to advance written argumentation through writing a group report for peer review and oral argumentation through a critical discussion. Through the argumentation between groups and in group, the students' arguments would be elaborated repeatedly. The feedback from argumentation links experiment activities to argumentation activities. Hence, the whole process of this inquiry model is circular.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.691-707
• /
• 2015

This study aims to develop biology teachers' education program based on argumentation activity about core concepts of evolution and to analyze the characteristics of core concepts of evolution learned during the program. The eight core concepts of evolution in this study were variation, heritability of variation, competition, natural selection, adaptation, differential reproductive rate of individuals, changes in genetic pool within a population, and macroevolution. The performances of teachers participating in the program were compared before and after argumentation activities; consisting of seven sessions on the eight core concepts of evolution. The process of the program was specially designed by learning cycle model for teacher education, consisting of seven phases: identification of the task, production of a tentative argument, small group's written argument, share arguments with the other groups, reflective discussion, final written argument, and organization by an instructor. Participants in the study were two pre-service biology teachers and four in-service biology teachers. The results suggest that biology teachers reduced the teleological explanation for biological evolution and improve its adequacy after the intervention. Teachers lacked the opportunity to discuss variation, heritability of variation, competition, and macroevolution because science textbooks lack information on the concepts of biological evolution. The results of this study suggest that because the argumentation program developed for teachers helps to improve understanding the concepts of evolution and to reduce inadequate conceptions in biology, teacher education programs using argumentation activity and eight core concepts of evolution will play a role for efficient evolution education for biology teachers.

• 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.