• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.203-220
• /
• 2021

We explored the performance improvement method of automated scoring for scientific argumentation. We analyzed the pattern of argumentation using automated scoring models. For this purpose, we assessed the level of argumentation for student's scientific discourses in classrooms. The dataset consists of four units of argumentation features and argumentation levels for episodes. We utilized argumentation clusters and n-gram to enhance automated scoring accuracy. We used the three supervised learning algorithms resulting in 33 automatic scoring models. As a result of automated scoring, we got a good scoring accuracy of 77.59% on average and up to 85.37%. In this process, we found that argumentation cluster patterns could enhance automated scoring performance accuracy. Then, we analyzed argumentation patterns using the model of decision tree and random forest. Our results were consistent with the previous research in which justification in coordination with claim and evidence determines scientific argumentation quality. Our research method suggests a novel approach for analyzing the quality of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.405-414
• /
• 2020

In this study, we analyzed the development of high school students' argumentation through their writings on socio-scientific Issues (SSI) related to the Climate Change Unit in the Earth Science I curriculum. Pre- and post-writing assignments on the two main causes of global warming were analyzed and compared. In addition, an in-depth interview of the focus group was conducted with 7 students who showed a distinct change in the level of argumentation. According to the results, 16 of 52 students remained at the same argumentation level in pre- and post-writing assignments, and students remaining at Level 2 among five levels had difficulty in understanding the Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) structure. Using the TAP structure, 29 of 52 students demonstrated increased argumentation levels in the post-writing assignments. The conclusions include that writing lessons on SSI using the TAP in Earth science classes can improve the level of high school students' argumentative writing, and that the level of students' argumentation can develop with the elaboration of their level of falsification. Also, it is suggested that the science curriculum should increase students' science writing competencies by specifying science writing as one of the goals.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.311-339
• /
• 2021

This study examined the effects of scaffolding types (Toulmin's Argument Pattern: TAP or Argumentation Vee Diagram: AVD) and individual metacognition levels (low or high) on students' learning achievement in online collaborative argumentation. A total of 191 Chinese undergraduates took part in this study. They were randomly assigned to either the TAP scaffolding, AVD scaffolding, or no scaffolding condition. They were teamed up in small groups of two or three students to argue with their peers using SNS as the online collaborative argumentation environment. The results revealed that students in the TAP and AVD scaffolding conditions did not gain significantly higher retention or transfer scores than students without scaffolding. However, students in the TAP scaffolding condition significantly outperformed those in the AVD scaffolding condition on transfer scores. Individual metacognition did not significantly affect learning achievement in online collaborative argumentation. Additionally, there was no significant interaction effect between scaffolding types and individual metacognition levels on retention or on transfer. The findings have implications for scaffolding design for online collaborative argumentation and also suggest that more attention should be paid to social metacognition rather than to individual metacognition when students work collaboratively.

• 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.32 no.5
• /
• pp.1007-1026
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to develop analytic framework for dialogic argumentation to show the context and flow visualizing interactions of argumentation, to be able to present quality of argumentation specifically. For this, we formulated a method of the argumentation diagram using feature of diagram simple and structurally visualizing interrelation between argument components, and then quantified quality of argumentation to argument level score on this basis. We have developed the learning material for argumentation about a vertical circular motion and used the obtained translations from applying it in developing the framework. We chose argument statements among full transcript and then coded as Toulmin's argument components, and these codes was effectively arranged and linked to show argumentation diagram. Results by argumentation diagram could be useful understanding of interactive argumentation context and the flow and present frequency, the combination of argument elements, rough qualitative level of argumentation. To quantify argumentation quality, we gave different scores to different link lines reflecting indication of argumentation quality like that diversity of argument component, justification, presence or absence of rebuttals. The process of identification of argument level is very simple, qualitative level of argumentation represented as concrete score could present various and concrete argument level. Developed analytic framework might contribute to argumentation research field, because it can present effectively dialogic argumentation result. Also, various analysis cases might guide designing an effective argumentation practice and circular motion learning.

• 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 The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.5
• /
• pp.919-929
• /
• 2015

This study aims to develop a modeling-based learning program about geologic structures and to reveal the relationship between the argumentation patterns and levels of students' mental models. Participants included 126 second grade high school students in four sessions of modeling-based learning regarding continental drift, oceanic ridges, transform faults, and characteristics of faults. A modeling-based learning program was implemented in two classes of the experimental group, and teacher-centered traditional classes were carried out for the other students in the comparison group. Science achievement scores and the distribution of students' mental models in experimental and comparison groups were quantitatively compared. The video-taped transcripts of five teams' argumentation were qualitatively analyzed based on the analytic framework developed in the study. The analytic framework for coding students' argumentation in the modeling-based learning was composed of five components of TAP and the corresponding components containing alternative concepts. The results suggest that the frequencies of causal two-dimensional model and cubic model were high in the experimental group, while the frequencies of simple two-dimensional model and simple cross sectional model were high in the comparison group. The higher the frequency of claims, an argumentation pattern was proven successful, and the level of mental model was higher. After the rebuttal was suggested, students observed the model again and claimed again according to new data. Therefore, the model could be confirmed as having a positive impact on students' argumentation process.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.604-624
• /
• 2012

This study aims to design a framework for analyzing group argumentation in terms of participants' interaction. Regarding the current group argumentation setting as argumentation on socio-scientific issues within participants who have had limited experience on group argumentation, the analytical framework was designed to explain (1) what was each participant's role on group argumentation, (2) how these roles were changed within each time of argumentation, and (3) how the patterns of interaction were changed through seven times of a series of argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Based on the literature review on analytical framework of argumentation in science education including the works on the structure of argumentation, the discourse formation through interaction, and the linguistic approach on participants' interaction, the current research framework was built. Showing the results of applying the designed framework on group argumentation as an example, strength of using the current designed framework was discussed.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.739-751
• /
• 2010

The research reported in this study focused on an analysis of argumentation in the inquiry discourse among pre-service science teachers. For about 3 months, 7 groups of 24 pre-service science teachers participated in an open-ended inquiry and performed 10 inquiry discourses. All discourses were collected by video-recording and transcribed. To analyze features of argumentation discourse, analytic tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern and cognitive argumentation scheme were applied to discussion transcripts. The results were as follows: First, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'meaning unit' was 'claim-warrant-data-rebuttal-backing.' Second, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'dialogue unit' was 'CW-CD-CDW-CWR-CR'. Third, more rebuttals were found than other discussions. Fourth, the second argumentative discussion showed a higher level than the first.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.79-92
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to develop an inquiry-based argumentation task for use in science teachers' professional development by providing them with the substantial experience of argumentation. To do so, the study has developed an argumentation task by utilizing the experiment on the Charles' Law of gas and revised by applying to eight teachers three times. We have revised the questions by analyzing three issues that have been revealed throughout this process in ways that facilitated teachers' argumentation. The effects of revision have been confirmed by the improvements in teachers' argumentation pattern. Three issues have been identified in developing argumentation tasks for science teachers' professional development and they are as follows: determining the openness of the structure of a question, achieving cognitive conflict and convergence of opinions at the same time, and ways of utilizing various evidence. As the task has been revised in ways that enabled scientific approach to the inquiry topic and facilitated the convergence of various opinions, the participants' argumentation patterns have improved both quantitatively and qualitatively. Meanwhile, the inclusion of an actual experiment has not influence their argumentation, while the observation of experimental data has been used as the core evidence according to the character of the problem. Based on the study's result, we suggest practical implications for developing argumentation tasks for science teachers in more varying contexts.