• Journal of Gifted/Talented Education
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.163-174
• /
• 2011

As the scientific technology has produced complex problems that required value judgment, science-gifted students need the program for enhancing the critical thinking. Therefore, this study analyzed patterns of claims on scientific technology of the science-gifted for the development of argument program. The data were collected by 60 science-gifted students using writing and e-mail. The result showed that 29% of the participants provided only advantageous factors for their claims, whereas only 10% among the participants who provided both sides used pattern of 'rebuttal.' In addition, the students who fell into the patterns of 'alternative suggestion' and 'overly positive expectation on scientific technology' revealed positive recognition on scientific technology. These results highlight the need of argumentation program for science-gifted students that could be guideline for knowledge or argumentation, help awareness of limitation and role of scientific technology and lead to well-balanced judgment between positive effects and negative ones.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.7
• /
• pp.1099-1108
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of argument structure on students' writing in implementation of argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Participants of this study were 108 8th grade students (three classes). Two classes (68 students) were assigned to an experimental group, and the other class (35 students) was assigned to a comparative group. The experimental group was taught argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach, while the comparative group was taught with the traditional teaching strategy. After implementing this program, the two groups were asked to write summaries using structured argumentation in their writing. The result of this study showed that the experimental group used better argument structure and multimodal representation such as pictures, graphs and examples in evidence than the comparative group. The quality of evidence used in the students' writing was different between two groups. Students of the comparative group only listed fragments of science concepts for evidence to support their claims, but students of the experimental group explained science concepts by giving specific examples. The findings show that argument-based inquiry using the SWH approach was effective on argument structure in students' writing.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.59 no.1
• /
• pp.69-77
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to examine changes in student writings of claim and evidence after group and class discussions; changes in students' critical thinking; and students' perceptions on an argument-based claim and evidence writing approach. Seventy two grade 11 students from two classes of a high school located in Seoul participated in ten chemistry activities using the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach. Claim scores for 9 topics and evidence scores for 10 topics significantly improved after group discussion. There were also statistically significant differences in claim scores for 7 topics and evidence scores for 10 topics after class discussion. Participant students responded to an open-ended survey that group discussion helped them to figure out the problem context and class discussion guided them to provide with more sufficient evidence. There were also statistically significant increases in sub-scores of the Cornell Critical Thinking Test after the intervention.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.6
• /
• pp.583-592
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing on student's modeling ability. For this study, 66 students (three classes) from the 7th grade were selected and of these, 43 students (two classes) were assigned to two experimental groups while the other 23 students (one class) were assigned to comparative group. In the experimental groups, one group (22 students) was Argument-based multimodal Representation and Modeling (AbRM), and the other group (21 students) was Argument-based Modeling (AbM). Modeling ability consisted of identifying the problem, structuring of scientific concepts, adequacy of claim and evidence and index of multimodal representation. As for the modeling ability, AbRM group scored significantly higher than the other groups, AbM group was significantly higher than comparative group. The four sub-elements of modeling ability in the AbRM group was significantly higher than the other groups statistically and AbM group scored significantly higher than comparative group. From these results, the argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing was effective on students' modeling ability. Students organized or expressed the model and evaluated or modified it through the process of argument-based modeling using scientific writing and the exchange of opinions with others by scientific language as argument and writing.

• 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 Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.161-172
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to characterize students' conceptions on causes of the phases of the moon. For this purpose, students were given a worksheet for argumentative writing activity where in they need to choose the right answer between five statements and provide reasonable evidences about causes of the phases of the moon. Written arguments collected were used as analysis data and TAP(Toulmin's argument pattern) including conceptual analysis of TAP elements were utilized to figure out logical structures and subordinate conceptions. The result showed that students had various alternative concepts about causes of the phases of the moon and associated with celestial. Also 70.5% of subjects had incomplete argument structures, and error types of concepts had difference according to types of alternative concepts as well as TAP. These results mean that importance of checking students' preconceptions, need of scientific argumentation, and appropriate instructional strategies considering alternative conception types and fallacy types that students had.