• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.286-301
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of argumentation for elementary students' scientific writing. Using nine subjects that were comprised of scientific situations and social scientific situations, this study was applied to four 5th grade students utilizing argumentation and scientific writing. The students' scientific writing and argumentation were collected and analyzed based on three domains of scientific writing: scientific thinking, logic, and creativity. The results from this study are as follows. First, the various contents of argumentation positively affected all of the scientific writing domains in post-argumentation scientific writing. Second, the contents of argumentation appeared in the post-argumentation scientific writing as three different forms: 1) Each individual's scientific concepts, claims, and ideas, which were newly mentioned in the process of argumentation, were expressed, 2) Their classmates' claims, grounds and ideas, which were discussed in the process of argumentation, were expressed through internalization, and 3) Expanded ideas, new claims and inferences based on the argumentation were expressed.

• 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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.8
• /
• pp.1077-1091
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory on preservice science teachers' chemistry concepts understanding and writing. Five topics about argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory activities were developed using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Summary Writing Test, and Chemistry Concepts Test were developed as tools to examine the effects of this approach. Both Argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory activities and traditional general chemistry laboratory activities were implemented for the experimental group (23 students), and traditional general chemistry laboratory activities were implemented for the comparative group (16 students). Results of this study indicated that there were significant differences in both groups' chemistry concepts understanding and summary writing. The experimental group showed significantly higher mean score than comparative group in chemistry concepts understanding and summary writing. In the analysis of the sub-component of Summary Writing, there were no significant difference between both groups in 'Big Idea.' However, the experimental group gained significantly higher mean score in 'argumentation,' 'understanding of science concepts,' and 'rhetoric structure.' The results showed that argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory programs were effective in achieving chemistry concepts understanding and writing in general chemistry laboratory.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.11-23
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to analyze the degree of argumentation structure development and factors of development of preservice teachers through SSI related argumentative writings. The study was conducted with 16 preservice teachers that students taking elementary science education theory class in K university located in Chungbuk. The testees wrote six SSI related argumentative writings (once a week), and we examined the degree of argumentation structure development and the change in the recognition of SSI of the preservice teachers by comparing the writings before and after the experiments. The experimental results showed that argumentation structure of the preservice teachers'writings improved and argument level (argument capability) of them also increased as the number of writing was increased. Factors that affect the argumentation structure improvement are mainly argumentation structure education, a number of writings, feedbacks, and subjects related to SSI. In this aspect, the argumentative writing on SSI has the effect of developing scientific sophistication and enhancing the decision-making power of students, and it has positive impacts in science education.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.8
• /
• pp.824-827
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the changes in structure and contents of different functional genre of science writing during high school using the argumentation structure. For this thesis, seven students of a girls' high school in the national capital region took the argumentation structure instruction for 40 hours for a month. As a result, considerable changes had occurred amid the Explanation genre, the Experiment-recount genre and the Exposition genre. In the Explanation genre and the Experiment-recount genre, noticeable progress had been made in the usage of the argumentation elements and scientific concepts and knowledge evolved in a more rarified and detailed manner. In the Exposition genre, argumentation structure had changed from the simple argumentation structure to the subordination or the multiplex argumentation structure. Simultaneously, it was affirmed that the types and number of the argumentation elements increased significantly along with enlargement of respective scientific concepts and knowledge. Hence, this implies students can determine their understanding of scientific facts and contents during the progress of developing the argumentation structure. It is necessary that students take the well-organized argumentation structure instruction.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.492-512
• /
• 2013

The aim of this study is to investigate the change of science writing ability between pre and post-science writing which was written before and after argumentation activity and to show how argumentation influences the science writing ability. To fulfill this aim, eight 5th grade students were chosen from an elementary school. They were involved in the nine science writing themes which was compose of scientific contexts and social scientific contexts. Students' science works in argumentation and writing activity were collected and analysed based on four domains of framework for science writing ability: scientific thinking, logic, creativity and expression ability. The result of this study showed that the affirmative change of four domains of science writing ability on post-science writing written after argumentation was observed. Also, an affirmative change was observed in all of the scientific and social scientific themes. A lot of changes of the scientific writing ability were observed especially when the themes were familar to student. The degree of change depended on the level of the student, but overall it influenced all participating students with a positive improvement for their scientific writing ability. Students with high grade of academic achievement showed high improvement in science writing ability, but students who had low grade of academic achievement also showed a positive improvement in science writing ability.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.28 no.8
• /
• pp.922-936
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) teaching strategy on cognitive levels, science concept understanding, argumentation and writing skills. 131 students attending to co-ed middle school were selected for the study and assigned to the experimental and comparative group. The teaching strategy using SWH was applied to the experimental group, while the traditional one led by teacher's lecturing was applied to the comparative group. The cognitive level test (SRT II) and baseline test were administered before the instruction period. The summary writing test and SRT II test were administered after instruction. The results showed that there was a significant difference between two groups in cognitive levels and science concept understanding, whole argumentation and writing skills. However, there was no significant difference in some argumentation components, including warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal, metacongnitive question. The results of this study showed the possibility of implementation of SWH in science classroom teaching.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.353-361
• /
• 2015

This study focused on the use of peer assessment activities to investigate its the impact on students' argumentation skills in argument-based inquiry. The participants of the study were 106 10th grade students (four classes). Two classes were assigned to the experimental group, and the other two classes were assigned to the comparative group. The experimental group was taught argument-based inquiry through the application of peer assessment activities. The comparative group was taught argument-based inquiry without peer assessments. At the claim and evidence stage, students were asked to evaluate whether peers' claims fit with the evidence and whether peers' explanation of the evidences validity was sufficient. The quality of argumentation used in the students' writing was different in each group. According to the analysis of the summary writing test, the results showed that the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score than the comparative group in argumentation components, including evidence and warrant/backing. In addition, the experimental group used better multimodal representation including explanation of evidence than the comparative group. The findings showed that argument-based inquiry applying peer assessment activities had an effect on the argumentation skills in students' writing.

• 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.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.