• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.85-93
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this research was to investigate the change of argumentation of middle school students when they participated in argument tasks with CASE(Cognitive acceleration through science education) programs. Students argumentations were divided into two categories; 'explanatory argumentation' and 'dialogic argumentation'. Several argumentation components were used in their argumentation. Among argumentation components, claim and ground took place more than half of argumentation components. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was lower than the percentage of 'explanatory argumentation'. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was getting higher during CASE intervention. CASE programs had more effect on symmetric group than asymmetric group, however it was unstable. In general, participation ratio in argumentation of the formal operational student was high and the ratio in argumentation of the transitional student was getting higher.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.1037-1049
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore how the flow of discourse move and their reasoning process in dialogic argumentation during group modeling on excretion. Five groups of three to four students in the second grade of a middle school participated in the modeling practice of a Gifted Center. Analysis was conducted on argumentation during the modeling activity in which students should explain how the waste product (ammonia) leaves the body. It was found that there was a sequential argumentative process-tentative consensus, solving the uncertainty, and consensus. There were several discourse moves - 'claim' and 'counterclaim' in the stage of tentative consensus, 'query' and 'clarification of meaning' in the stage of solving the uncertainty, and 'change of claim' in the stage of consensus. Students participated in the dialogic argumentation by constructing argument collaboratively for reaching a consensus. Critical questioning in the stage of solving the uncertainty and reasoning in the stage of consensus were the impact factors of dialogic argumentation. By answering the critical questions, students changed their claims or suggested new claims by defending or rebutting previous claims. Students justified group claims with diverse argumentation scheme and scientific reasoning to reach a group consensus. These findings have implication for science educators who want to adopt dialogic argumentation in science classes.

• 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 Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2015

Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distinctive features (e.g. interdisciplinary, controversial, value-laden, etc.), Toulmin's model would not fit into the context. Therefore, we attempted to develop an analytical framework for SSI dialogic argumentation by addressing the concepts of 'discourse clusters' and 'discourse schemes.' Discourse clusters indicated a series of utterances created for a similar dialogical purpose in the SSI contexts. Discourse schemes denoted meaningful discourse units that well represented the features of SSI reasoning. In this study, we presented six types of discourse clusters and 19 discourse schemes. We applied the framework to the data of students' group discourse on SSIs (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear energy, etc.) in order to verify its validity and applicability. The results indicate that the framework well explained the overall flow, dynamics, and features of students' discourse on SSI.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.64 no.5
• /
• pp.291-303
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to explore the patterns of college students' dialogic argumentation in the context of nanotechnology issues, and to compare these patterns based on their idiocentrism and allocentrism. Nanotechnology represents the characteristics of socioscientific issues in that it is widely used in various fields, but at the same time, it includes the likelihood of negative effects. 33 college students who enrolled in science-related course participated in this study. Participants were divided into idiocentric groups and allocentric groups based on the INDCOL scores, and they participated in group discussions on nanotechnology. All discussions were audiotaped and analyzed using the framework of discourse clusters and schemes. Results showed that participating students engaged in dialogic argumentation with the process of exchanging of individual perspectives, exploration of different perspectives, and coordination and negotiation; specifically, they spent most of their time in exploring different values and perspectives regarding nanotechnology. Results also indicated the differences in discourse clusters and discourse schemes between idiocentric and allocentric groups. Allocentric groups more often negotiated to settle on a group decision than idiocentric groups did, and discourse schemes in their negotiation process were slightly different from the ones in idiocentric groups.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.400-413
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to investigate middle school students' processes of argumentation in science lessons and to compare students' argumentation in different contexts (socioscientific context/scientific context). An argumentation-based teaching-learning strategy was used to enhance quality in students' arguments in science lessons. Data were collected from five lessons by video- and audio-recording eight groups of four students each engaging in argumentation. The quality and frequency of students' argumentation was analyzed using an assessment framework based on the work of Toulmin. The findings showed that: (a) there was improvement in the quality of students' argumentation; (b) there were no differences in the structure of argumentation and percentage of explanatory argumentation components as well as dialogic argumentation components in different argumentation contexts. The results of this study showed that students' argumentation can be enhanced with strategic argumentation teaching-learning.

• 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 earth science society
• /
• v.30 no.7
• /
• pp.909-927
• /
• 2009

Inquiry became an essential methodology in science education. Recently, argumentation becomes more important in inquiry, but inquiry-based teaching in school science would not provide enough opportunities for students to have voluntary and active interactions during inquiry activities. Informal science learning can be an alternative for authentic inquiry. Accordingly, this study aims to find interaction patterns in dialogic inquiry of junior high school students in small groups in the natural history gallery. Inquiry elements and interaction patterns are analyzed with 42 dialogues of 13 small groups. As a result, seven interaction patterns are identified. First, five major interaction patterns were drawn as follows; Sharing questions, asking questions and simple response, asking questions and simple explanation, asking questions-simple explanation-(collecting data)-data based explanation, and asking questions-collecting data-data based explanation. Second, pattern 2, 'asking questions and simple response', is subdivided into three categories; passive and/or evasive response, inaccurate response, and repeated patterns of asking questions-simple response. The results of the study provide different patterns of dialogic interactions in a small group inquiry in informal contexts from formal contexts, and provide foundations to understand middle school students' interactive dialogues of inquiry occurred in the natural history gallery.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.135-145
• /
• 2018

In this study, we investigated the argumentations of group and classroom discussions in socioscientific issues (SSI) discussion classes. Twenty-seven high school students participated in the SSI discussion classes on nuclear power generation. We observed and recorded the classes and also conducted semi-structured interviews. For the analyses, we revised a previous framework that was developed to analyze dialogic argumentations in the context of SSI. The analyses of the results indicated that there were more discourse schemes in the classroom discussions than the group discussions which are related to awareness and openness to multiple perspectives, evidence based reasoning, and on-going inquiry and skepticism. And there were few discourse schemes related to moral and ethical sensitivity in the group and classroom discussions. Various grounds, data, and information were presented in the classroom discussions. Students concentrated on carrying their claims and were not able to sympathize with and accept other opinions. Therefore, there were few discourse schemes to reach consensus. In addition, they perceived classroom discussions as competitive and actively rebutted other claims or grounds. The levels of argumentation were also high in the classroom discussions. The group discussions were held in relaxed atmosphere, and they asked the opponents more for clarification or additional information and evidences. However, classroom discussions were held in serious atmosphere, and they actively queried the validity of the claims or grounds. Based on the results, some suggestions to implement SSI discussion classes were discussed.