• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.171-186
• /
• 2018

Recent research has shown that elementary school students can experience epistemic affect -emotions and feelings experienced within epistemic practices, such as the enjoyment of having a wonderful idea or uncomfortable feeling of at a cognitive dissonance- during modeling process. This study explores how an introverted elementary student could participate in the modeling process by constructing an epistemic affect. Based on the theory of constructed emotion, we analyzed one elementary student's constructed epistemic affect using data resources such as emotion diaries, video recordings, and post interviews. We selected one introverted student (a fifth grader), showing peripheral and full participation during modeling. Specifically, we explored which emotions were constructed when she participated in modeling peripherally -and which epistemic affect was constructed when she participated fully- during the construction, evaluation, and revision processes. The research results showed, first, that the introverted elementary student came to participate in the model construction process by constructing the epistemic affect called aha. Second, the results showed that she came to participate in the model revision process by constructing the epistemic affect called feeling that the reasoning was wrong when confronting the rebuttals of the other student. Finally, she came to participate in the model evaluation process by constructing the epistemic affect called dislike of another student's idea. Through our exploration of the constructed epistemic affect of the introverted elementary student, we deduced that it is important to help each student to construct an epistemic affect that facilitates his or her participation in modeling. Also, we discussed that it is important to understand the impact of the emotional load that can occur for each student, depending on the constructed past, present, and future emotions.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.265-276
• /
• 2016

In this study, modeling pedagogies were employed to re-design and teach the unit of Seasonal Changes in the $6^{th}$ grade science curriculum. The effects of the modeling-based program were investigated in both the conceptual and affective domains using an approach of mixing quantitative and qualitative techniques. The result showed that the students in the modeling-based science inquiry classroom gained a higher mean score in a conceptual achievement test than their counterparts in a traditional science classroom. The number of the conceptual resources activated to explain the causes of the seasons, as well as the types of student explanations developed through the combination of the resources activated, were greater in the modeling-based classroom. The modeling-based science inquiry was also effective in improving student attitudes toward science lessons. It was revealed, however, that the students experienced both positive and negative epistemic feelings during the modeling-based science inquiry. Implications of these findings for science education and relevant research were suggested and discussed.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2020

In scientific argumentation, students can use rebuttals to escape uncertainty, which, in this case, can be defined as a vague and fuzzy feeling about other students' explanations. As rebuttals can play a critical role in the sophistication of arguments and the alleviation of uncertainty, this study aims to understand the dynamics of uncertainty and rebuttals by exploring the context of the uncertainty experienced by elementary school students in the argumentation of "Why did the kidney beans not germinate?" and to get insights based on the research results. Twenty fourth-grade students and their homeroom teacher in Kyong-Ki province, South Korea, took part in the research. Students engaged in argumentation in five small groups of four students. The researcher collected qualitative data through video transcriptions, student interviews, and field notes. In the data analysis, the researcher employed the constant comparative method to explore in what context students experienced uncertainty and how they used rebuttals. The results of this study were as follows: First, students tried to reduce their uncertainty through argumentation on why the kidney beans did not germinate. Second, students used elaboration-oriented rebuttals, personal opinion-oriented rebuttals, and blame-oriented rebuttals to reduce this uncertainty. However, when they used blame-oriented rebuttals, their uncertainty and negative emotions increased. Third, intervention by the teacher led students to stop using blame-oriented rebuttals. Instead, they employed elaboration-oriented rebuttals to explore why the kidney beans would not sprout, and finally, they escaped uncertainty by discovering an appropriate explanation. Based on the findings of this study, the researcher discussed how the interaction between uncertainty and elaboration-oriented rebuttals could shape and facilitate argument development in elementary school students.