• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.895-910
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students' progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students' group norms related to participation were developed, and the students' epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students' group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others' arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

• 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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to explore teachers' responsive moves that affect students' argumentation practices, and to propose responsive teaching strategies in argumentation-based science classroom. Two teachers, who have not implemented argumentation in their classes, and 57 students, participated in this study. We recorded and transcribed their classes and interviews for the analysis. According to grounded theory approach, we categorized the teachers' responsive moves as focused on either structural or dialogical aspects of argumentation, and qualitatively analyzed their responsive teaching practices in classes. We discovered that the teachers mostly responded to structural rather than dialogical aspects of argumentation, particularly during the students' small-group discussions. This was mainly due to their instructional goals, which focused on the structural aspect of argumentation, and the limited time available for supporting small-groups. Regarding the structural aspects, those responsive moves that explored the students' thinking or facilitated their reasoning helped them to share their thinking and justify their arguments further with recognition of learning goals in the argumentation activities. Regarding the dialogical aspects, which were seen mostly in whole-class discussions, the moves that underlined similarities and differences between arguments, facilitated the sharing of a small-group's arguments with the entire class, or asked a specific student to evaluate the arguments were notable. These moves supported clarification of various small-groups' arguments, which led to reconstruction of coherent argument through evaluation and rebuttal of these arguments, consequentially facilitating dialogical interactions. Based on these results, we proposed responsive teaching strategies in an argumentation-based science classroom.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.11-26
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers' responsive practices in whole class discussion after small group argumentation and the underlying epistemological framing. Three teachers and 84 students participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities about the sensory system. We recorded both their discussions in the classes and our interviews with the teachers, which were transcribed for analysis. The results of the analysis showed that the teachers' responsive practices and the epistemological framing were categorized into four types. By framing the discussion as 'reaching the correct answer through discussion,' the teacher focused on whether students' ideas corresponded to scientific concepts and transferred scientific ideas to the students. By framing the discussion as 'eliciting appropriate conceptual resources and developing them into a scientific idea through critical evaluation,' the teacher engaged in the students' discussion as another participant, and considered the small groups' arguments as resources that could develop into scientific concepts. By framing the discussion as 'sharing small groups' arguments,' the teacher responded by asking for clarification of each group's argument, considering it as a valid argument in its own way. By framing the discussion as 'reaching a consented argument through critical evaluation,' the teacher negotiated students' critical evaluation and revision of the arguments. We explored the implications and limitations of each type of responsive practice and considered that the results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies in argumentation activities.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.63-75
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students' productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone's vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students' epistemological framing and the teacher's responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students' thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher's understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students' ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students' ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students' ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students' productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies to support students' productive framing in science classrooms.

• 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.35 no.4
• /
• pp.691-707
• /
• 2015

This study aims to develop biology teachers' education program based on argumentation activity about core concepts of evolution and to analyze the characteristics of core concepts of evolution learned during the program. The eight core concepts of evolution in this study were variation, heritability of variation, competition, natural selection, adaptation, differential reproductive rate of individuals, changes in genetic pool within a population, and macroevolution. The performances of teachers participating in the program were compared before and after argumentation activities; consisting of seven sessions on the eight core concepts of evolution. The process of the program was specially designed by learning cycle model for teacher education, consisting of seven phases: identification of the task, production of a tentative argument, small group's written argument, share arguments with the other groups, reflective discussion, final written argument, and organization by an instructor. Participants in the study were two pre-service biology teachers and four in-service biology teachers. The results suggest that biology teachers reduced the teleological explanation for biological evolution and improve its adequacy after the intervention. Teachers lacked the opportunity to discuss variation, heritability of variation, competition, and macroevolution because science textbooks lack information on the concepts of biological evolution. The results of this study suggest that because the argumentation program developed for teachers helps to improve understanding the concepts of evolution and to reduce inadequate conceptions in biology, teacher education programs using argumentation activity and eight core concepts of evolution will play a role for efficient evolution education for biology teachers.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.193-202
• /
• 2021

This study aims to identify what kind of epistemological resources were activated in unproductive and productive practice by students participating in scientific argumentation, and to explore which contexts result in changes in argumentative practice. We collected transcriptions of participants' argumentative lessons and interview, participants' work sheets, and researchers' field notes. The analysis revealed that the focus group activated different kinds of epistemological resources depending on their practice; propagated, belief, and accumulation in unproductive practice and constructed, understanding, accumulation, formation and rebuttal in productive practice. We found two contextual cues that led to these changes; unfamiliar form of argumentative task was provided and emotional, epistemic, and conceptual support of the epistemic authority. This work can be provided as additional case studies to analyze changes in practice according to learner context-dependent epistemology, and we expect to contribute to discussions of productive epistemology and stabilization for students' authentic science engagement.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.6
• /
• pp.739-753
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics and limitations of a novice teachers's responsive teaching practice, who framed argumentation productively. One novice teacher and two eighth-grade classes participated in this study. Two of the small student groups with active teacher intervention were selected as focus groups. Students engaged in argumentation activity where they built an argument for hearing if the eardrum was torn. We recorded the class and interviews with the teacher and the students, which were transcribed for use in the analysis of the teacher's responsive teaching practices and epistemological, positional framing. We discovered that teacher thought that he should position himself as a facilitator to encourage students to present ideas clearly and to reach consensus. His framing was consistent in responsive teaching practices. Positioning himself as a facilitator, after he framed the discussion as idea sharing discussion by eliciting and probing students' idea, he framed the discussion as argumentative discussion by taking up students' idea and pointing out disagreement between them. As a result, members of small group 1 engaged in argumentative discussion and reached consensus. However, the teacher's productive framing did not guarantee students' productive argumentation practice. In small group 2, he did not elicit and probe students' ideas successfully. As a result, members of small group 2 did not engaged in argumentative discussions. He responded limitedly to the lack of students' conceptions because of lack of understanding about learners. Also, he mainly attended to students' reasoning, and not to students' framing about argumentation because he considered argumentation only as a tool for conceptual learning. The result of this study will contribute to the establishment of responsive teaching in science classrooms.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.565-575
• /
• 2017

This study analyzes the epistemic considerations and the argumentation level revealed in the discourse of the key concept of natural selection for science-gifted elementary students. The paper analyzes and discusses the results of a three-student focus group, drawn from a cohort of twenty gifted sixth-grade elementary students. Nature, generality, justification, and audience were used to analyze epistemic consideration. Learning progression in scientific argumentation including argument construction and critique was used to analyze students' scientific argumentation level. The findings are as follows: First, Epistemic considerations in discourse varied between key concepts of natural selection discussed. The nature aspect of epistemic considerations is highly expressed in the discourse for all natural selection key concepts. But the level of generality, justification and audience was high or low, and the level was not revealed in the discourse. In the heredity of variation, which is highly expressed in terms of generality of knowledge, the linkage with various phenomena against the acquired character generated a variety of ideas. These ideas were used to facilitate engagement in argumentation, so that all three students showed the level of argumentation of suggestions of counter-critique. Second, students tried to explain the process of speciation by using concepts that were high in practical epistemic considerations level when explaining the concept of speciation, which is the final natural selection key concept. Conversely, the concept of low level of epistemic considerations was not included as an explanation factor. The results of this study suggest that students need to analyze specific factors to understand why epistemological decisions are made by students and how epistemological resources are used according to context through various epistemological resources. Analysis of various factors influencing epistemological decisions can be a mediator of the instructor who can improve the quality and level of the argumentation.