Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of What-If Activities in Argument-Based Inquiry Science Classes on Science High School Students' Argumentation

논의기반 탐구(ABI) 과학수업에서 What-If 활동이 과학 고등학교 학생들의 논의에 미치는 영향

  • SeongDae Park (Pusan National University) ;
  • JiHun Park (Gyeongin National University of Education) ;
  • Dojun Jung (Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeonghee Nam (Pusan National University)
  • 박성대 (부산대학교) ;
  • 박지훈 (경인교육대학교) ;
  • 정도준 (부산대학교) ;
  • 남정희 (부산대학교)
  • Received : 2024.09.04
  • Accepted : 2024.10.14
  • Published : 2024.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a What-If activity applied in Argument-Based Inquiry(ABI) science classes on the argumentation levels of science high school students. For this purpose, the experimental group participated in ABI science classes incorporating What-If activities, while the comparative group participated in ABI science classes without the What-If activities. Transcripts of class discussions were collected for analysis of argumentation level and examples of rebuttals were presented to show the change in the level of argumentation. The results of the study showed that the experimental group, which engaged in What-If activities, showed a higher frequency of high-level rebuttals by both the object and method of rebuttals compared to the comparative group. Furthermore, while both groups showed discussions and rebuttals related to the experimental process, the experimental group also demonstrated additional discussions and rebuttals concerning experimental results and scientific principles, unlike the comparative group.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 과학기술정보통신부 및 정보통신기획평가원의 대학ICT연구센터사업의 연구결과로 수행되었음(IITP-2024-2020-0-01606).

References

  1. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
  2. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2004). The art of problem posing. New York: Psychology Press.
  3. Buck, Z. E., Lee, H. S., & Flores, J. (2014). I am sure there may be a planet there: Student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2391-2420.
  4. Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235-1276.
  5. Cho, H. A., Chang, J. E., & Kim, H. B. (2013). Epistemic Level in Middle School Students' Small-Group Argumentation Using First-Hand or Second-Hand Data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(2), 486-500.
  6. Cho, H. C., & Yu, S. C. (2011). A comparison of scientific inquiry abilities and self-regulated learning strategies between Korean scientifically gifted and regular students. Journal of the Korean Society for Gifted and Talented 2011, 10(3), 97-116.
  7. Cho, K. L. (2002). The Effects of the Types of Argumentation Scaffolds and Problems on the Quality of Argumentation, Problem Solving Achievement, and Group Effectiveness. Journal of Educational Technology, 18(3), 55-82.
  8. Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Hoglund, H. O. (2012). Enhancing Students' meta-Cognition and Argumentation Skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342-352.
  9. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
  10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
  11. Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Netherlands: Springer.
  12. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
  13. Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Netherlands: Springer.
  14. Han, M. H. (2020). Escaping Uncertainty: Elementary Students' Emotional-Cognitive Rebuttals in the Argumentation of "Why Did the Kidney Beans not Germinate?". Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(1), 1-12.
  15. Heo, N. G. (2021). Using 'What-If-Not Strategy' for Mathematical Exploration in a Dynamic Geometry Environment. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 21(14), 353-367.
  16. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
  17. Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Enhancing Students' meta-Cognition and Argumentation Skills. In Science education issues and developments. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  18. Jang, K. H., & Nam, J. H. (2016). The Effect of Negotiation in Argument-Based Inquiry on Middle School Students' Claim and Evidence. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(1), 39-47.
  19. Jang, K. H., Nam, J. H., & Choi, A. R. (2012). The Effects of Argument-Based Inquiry Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach on Argument Structure in Students' Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1099-1108.
  20. Jang, W. H., Choi, M. J., & Hong, H. G. (2021). Interpretation of Discrepant Events through Analysis of Inquiry Activities in Textbooks - Focusing on the Discussion of the Boiling Point Measurement Experiment -. The Korean Society for School Science, 15(5), 437-451.
  21. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  22. Kang, N. H., & Lee, E. K. (2013). Argument and Argumentation: A Review of Literature for Clarification of Translated Words. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(6), 1119-1138.
  23. Kang, S. M. (2004). Characteristics of argumentation components in solving processes of the scientific argument tasks. Korea National University of Education, Korea.
  24. Kang, S. M., Kwak, K. H., & Nam, J. H. (2006). The effects of argumentation-based teaching and learning strategy on cognitive development, science concept understanding, science-related attitude, and argumentation in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(3), 450-461.
  25. Kang, Y. E., Nam, J. H., & Cho, H. S. (2016). Analysis of Changes in Preservice Science Teachers' Modeling Ability in Argument-based General Chemistry Laboratory Investigations. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(4), 276-285.
  26. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
  27. Kim, H. K., & Song, J. W. (2004). The Exploration of Open Scientific Inquiry Model Emphasizing Students' Argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234.
  28. Kim, J. Y., Ha, J. H., Park, K. T., & Kang, S. J. (2008). The Analysis of Student-student Verbal Interactionson the Problem-solving Inquiry Which was Developed for Creativity-increment of the Gifted Middle School Students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 18(1), 1-21.
  29. Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer Argumentation in the School Science Laboratory-Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527-2558.
  30. Koe, H. S. (2009). A Study of a Thinking Process in Elementary School Student by Applying the Issues-Centered Cooperative Learning Model. Social Studies Education, 48(3), 57-73.
  31. Ku, B. W., & Song, S. H. (2011). Development and Utilization of Mathematics Teaching Materials for Gifted Class by the Use of Polyominoes and What if (not)? Strategy. Journal of Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 13(1), 175-187.
  32. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
  33. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thingking. London: Havard University Press.
  34. Kwak, K. H., & Nam, J. H. (2009). Enhancing the quality of students' argumentation and characteristics of students' argumentation in different contexts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(4), 400-413.
  35. Kwon, H. S., Kim, M. H., Kim, S. H., & Noh, T. H. (2017). The Patterns of Analogy Change and the Characteristics of Discussions in Collaborative Activity of Self-Generated Analogy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(3), 407-416.
  36. Lee, B. W., & Lim, M. S. (2010). Analysis of Argumentation in the Inquiry Discourse among Pre-service Science Teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(6), 739-751.
  37. Lee, D. H., & Song, S. H. (2013). The case analysis of Rummikub game redeveloped by gifted class using What-If-Not strategy. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 17(2), 285-299.
  38. Lee, D. W., Cho, H. S., & Nam, J. H. (2015). Investigating the Cognitive Process of a Student's Modeling on a Modeling-Emphasized Argument-Based General Chemistry Experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 313-323.
  39. Lee, E. J., Yun, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring Small Group Argumentation and Epistemological Framing of Gifted Science Students as Revealed by the Analysis of Their Responses to Anomalous Data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 419-429.
  40. Lee, G. E., Choe, S. U., & Kim, C. J. (2010). Characteristics of Argumentation in Science Instruction Using Internet Messenger: A Case of Scientifically Gifted Students in Apprenticeship.Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 31(6), 625-636.
  41. Lee, H. R. (2011). An Analysis on the Behavioral Characteristics of the Scientifically Gifted Students. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 32(3), 294-305.
  42. Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581-605.
  43. Lee, H.-S., Pallant, A., Pryputniewicz, S., Lord, T., Mulholland, M., & Liu, O. L. (2019). Automated text scoring and real-time adjustable feedback: Supporting revision of scientific arguments involving uncertainty. Science Education, 103(3), 590-622.
  44. Lee, J. G. (2012). Generating Counter-example for Refinement of Statements on If-Not-What-Yes and What-If-For : For Pre-service Teachers' Mathematics Education. Korea National University of Education, Korea.
  45. Lee, J. H., & Kim, H. B. (2021). Exploring Scientific Argumentation Practice from Unproductive to Productive: Focus on Epistemological Resources and Contexts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 41(3), 193-202.
  46. Lee, J. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2011). Small Group Argumentation Pattern of Middle School Students Constructed in The Conflict Context. Biology Education, 39(2), 235-247.
  47. Lee, M. J., Kwon, J. I., & Nam, J. H. (2015). Analysis of Argumentation in Middle School Science Classroom Using Argument-Based Inquiry. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 59(1), 78-87.
  48. Lee, S. E. (2018). Exploring an Alternative Direction for a Competence-Based Curriculum in an Age of Uncertainty: An "Ontological Approach". The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 45-69.
  49. Lee, S. K., Lee, G. H., Choi, C. I., & Shin, M. K. (2012). Analyzing Coordination of Theory and Evidence Presented in Pre-service Elementary Teachers' Science Writing for Inquiry Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 201-209.
  50. Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for. In Practical work in schools science: Which way now?. London: Routledge.
  51. Nam, J. H., Koh, M. R., Park, D. C., Lim, J. H., Lee, D. W., & Choi, A. R. (2011). The Effects of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory on Preservice Science Teachers' Understanding of Chemistry Concepts and Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1077-1091.
  52. Nam, J. H., Kwak, K. H., Jang, K. H., & Hand, B. (2008). The Implementation of Argumentation Using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
  53. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59-76.
  54. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science education, 87(2), 224-240.
  55. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.
  56. Oh, J. A., Lee, S. K., & Kim, C. J. (2008). A Case Study on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentative Communication in Earth Science MBL Classes. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 29(2), 189-203.
  57. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD]. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030 - A Series of Concept Notes. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  58. Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.
  59. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  60. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.
  61. Paik, S. H., & Son, S. H. (2014). An Analysis of Pre-Service Science Teachers' Argument Structures, the Factors Affecting the Practice of State Change Experiment in 7th Grade and Cognition of Pre-Service Education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 197-206.
  62. Park, J. A., Jung, D. J., Kim, G. U., Jun, J. K., & Nam, J. H. (2020). The Effects of Argument-Based Inquiry Activities On Elementary School Students' Claims and Evidence in Science Writing. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 64(6), 389-400.
  63. Park, J. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2012). Theoretical Considerations on Analytical Framework Design for the Interactions between Participants in Group Argumentation on Socio-Scientific Issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
  64. Park, J. Y., & Nam, J. H. (2019). Analysis of Epistemic Thinking in Middle School Students in an Argument-Based Inquiry(ABI) Science Class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 337-348.
  65. Park, W. M. (2020). Analysis of Rebuttals in the Argument Structure of Learning Contents in Lesson Plans of Earth Science Preservice Teachers. Journal of Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 13(3), 238-252.
  66. Rod Watson, J., Swain, J. R., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
  67. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257.
  68. Shin, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2011). The Gifted Students' View on Argumentation and the Aspects of the Argumentation in Problem-Solving Type Experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(4), 567-586.
  69. Shin, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Development of the Analytic Framework for Dialogic Argumentation Using the TAP and a Diagram in the Context of Learning the Circular Motion. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 1007-1026.
  70. Sinnema, C., Aitken, G., Priestley, M., & Biesta, G. (2013). Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  71. Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19, 347-371.
  72. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
  73. Yang, C. H., Kim, S. H., Jo, M. J., & Noh. T. H. (2016). The Characteristics of Group and Classroom Discussions in the Scientific Modeling of the Particulate Model of Matter. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 361-369.
  74. Yang, I. H., Kim, K. Y., Lim, S. M., Kim. E. A., & Kim. S. U. (2015). Elementary School Students' Decision-Making Change through Refutation Materials and Empathic Situation on Socio-Scientific Issue. Journal of Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 8(1), 66-75.