• 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.

• Korean Educational Research Journal
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.109-125
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to examine how group argumentations mediated individual arguments by analyzing physics teachers' group argumentation and individual follow-up written arguments. Five in-service physics teachers participated in this study, two middle school and three high school teachers. The topics of argumentation included physics topics and pedagogy of them. Findings showed that the teachers constructed much more elaborated individual written arguments than group argumentation, which seemed to be resulted from different perceptions of teachers' verbal and written argumentations. Also, in their written arguments the teachers selectively utilized their colleagues' ideas shared during group argumentation. Lastly, teachers' argumentation showed different features between topics of physics and physics pedagogy. These differences were related to their orientations toward argumentation about content knowledge and teaching. These findings shed light on a productive physics teacher professional development in argumentation.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.175-188
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study were to explore teaching method for scientific inquiry including scientific argumentation to increase students' scientific literacy. For this study, the detailed guideline including assessment frame for students' argumentation was developed and applied to seventh and ninth grade students. From this application, data were collected from the students' views by pre, post questionnaire and the teachers who had taught to their students by questionnaire including students' attitudes change and applicability. From this study, the result were following. The change of students' perceptions was revealed by questionnaire and the teachers' description. And the applicability of this teaching method was indicated by the teachers' opinion. From these findings, the method was found as applicable teaching method to teach scientific inquiry including scientific argumentation in school science.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the argumentations were affected by the students' characteristics in the small groups. The level of self-concept and science related attitude were examined to the eleventh grade high school students in Daejeon city, and the twelve students were participated for this study. The participants were divided into homogeneous groups and heterogeneous groups. The argumentations under the condition of the interpretations about the experimental results in each small group were recorded by VCR. The recorded data were transcribed, then argumentation levels from transcripts in each small group were analyzed through Mitchell's parameters of argumentation. The results of this study were that the group which had higher level of both self-concept and science related attitudes achieved higher level of argumentation. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to induce students to ask questions and present activities appropriately in order for those who have low self concept and science related attitudes to participate in argumentation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.28 no.5
• /
• pp.495-505
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of evidence used in gifted elementary students' argumentation. The subjects were 15, 5th and 6th grade students selected in the Science Education Institute for Gifted Youth in K University. After the argumentation task was given to students 2 weeks ago, the students grouped themselves in the affirmative and negative and took part in a debate for 2 hours. Their argumentation process was observed, recorded and transcribed for analysis. Transcribed data was given a Protocol Number according to priority and was examined to find out what were the characteristics when students participated in the task. The evidence used in argumentation was graded from level 1 to level 6 according to Perella's Hierarchy of Evidence and the rate of frequency classified by the level was expressed in graph. Students used Level 1- Level 2 evidence above 50% without for or against task. They had weak argumentation making use of low-level evidence such as individual experience, opinion and another person's experience rather than objective evidences. On the other hand, students commented on the lack of opponent's evidence when they could not trust an opponent's evidence. If one team asked the other to present more evidence but could not, they disregarded the question and turned to another topic. And in cases where the opponent team refuted with evidences of high level, the other team just repeated their claim or evaded the rebuttal. The students tended to complete the argument without the same conclusions with some interruptions. The results show that we need an educational programs including scientific argumentation for science-gifted elementary school students.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.739-751
• /
• 2010

The research reported in this study focused on an analysis of argumentation in the inquiry discourse among pre-service science teachers. For about 3 months, 7 groups of 24 pre-service science teachers participated in an open-ended inquiry and performed 10 inquiry discourses. All discourses were collected by video-recording and transcribed. To analyze features of argumentation discourse, analytic tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern and cognitive argumentation scheme were applied to discussion transcripts. The results were as follows: First, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'meaning unit' was 'claim-warrant-data-rebuttal-backing.' Second, the order of frequency in the analysis of 'dialogue unit' was 'CW-CD-CDW-CWR-CR'. Third, more rebuttals were found than other discussions. Fourth, the second argumentative discussion showed a higher level than the first.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.6
• /
• pp.666-679
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to survey the teachers' view on using argumentation in school science. For the purpose of this study, the questionnaire was designed for in-depth interview with an in-service middle school science teacher with Ph.D. and was completed through pilot testing with elementary and secondary in-service teachers. The data was surveyed from 1,015 teachers; 762 elementary school teachers, 127 middle school science teachers, and 126 high school science teachers. From the frequencies analysis of the data, the results indicated that the first students made some argumentation accord claim with evidence, the second, the teachers gave some opportunities to their students through the theme within their living environment or lab-activities involving argumentation, and lastly, most of the teachers recognized the absolute necessity of argumentation. From these results, recommendations about some post researches were suggested.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.840-862
• /
• 2013

This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin's argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin's argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants' collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMEs and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the flow of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.717-728
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the argumentation of gifted students in the perspective of rebuttal. Rebuttal is a significant indicator of argumentation quality; it is also an essential component for science learning through interaction. However, most previous research point out insufficient use of rebuttal in student's argumentation. The argumentation of 37 8th grade students, enrolled in institutes for the scientifically gifted in Seoul, are observed and recorded for 4 hours. The argumentation topic is about how to measure the brightness of the sun. Based on Verheij's (2005) five types of rebuttal patterns, the features of rebuttal are analyzed. It is found that students' argumentation include all of the five rebuttal types: rebuttal of the data, the claim, the warrant, warrant's applicability, and connection between data and claim. It is also found that these five types can be categorized in two groups. The first group consists of first three types and is characterized by the disagreement with the validity of what has been said. The second group consists of the last two types and is characterized by the suggestion or additional information for missing links in argumentation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.402-411
• /
• 2010

The purposes of this study are to analyze an argumentation between an astronomers group and a counter astronomers group that have concluded different results by using the same methods and to find an implication for applying to school science. For this study, two science research papers, which have been interpreted differently, were selected and analyzed in spite of observing same area in Titan and using same data process method. Their key issues are involved in interpretation and explanation, and the credibility of observed data. From this result, scientific argumentation accompanied with the credibility evaluation about the justification process of scientific explanation and experiment results needs to be developed.