• 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 Chemical Society
• /
• v.59 no.1
• /
• pp.78-87
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to investigate the argumentation of middle school students during the argument-based inquiry. A total of sixty eight 8th grade middle school students participated in this study and they performed six argument-based inquiry programs. Data were collected from two of the latest programs by audio-recording and transcription of each group engaging in argumentation. The study findings showed that; first, the most frequent element of argumentation in the all of stages of the two programs was following order: 'claim' and 'request and response' and 'simple agreement'. The most active argumentation was showed at the designing experiments stage and the most inactive was showed at the generating questions stage. Second, as a result of analyzing the argumentation level for each stage of the argument-based inquiry, a high level of argumentation was shown at the claim and evidence stage, and a low level of argumentation was shown at the generating questions stage in the argumentation structure. As a result of the validity of argumentation, the validity of argumentation was the highest level in the claim and evidence stage.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.115-128
• /
• 2014

Students' argumentation during science inquiry should be regarded important as it could help students to make meaningful connections between theories and experiments and to make scientific claims based on evidences. In this study, elementary science-gifted students' argumentation during small group inquiry was analyzed according to inquiry process. There were three stages of argumentation during students' inquiry. The first argumentation was to predict what would happen(Prediction stage). In this stage, the scientific problem was presented by concept cartoon as a way to start and to facilitate students' argumentation. The second argumentation was to design an experiment to solve the problem(Planning stage) and the third was to interpret the result of experiment(Interpretation stage). The discourse move, level of grounds and their relationship were analyzed to find the characteristics of argumentation during science inquiry. In terms of discourse move, 'Asking for opinion' was the most frequent whereas 'Claim' or 'Rebuttal' were rare. Students tended to listen to or ask others' opinion rather than provide their own claims or critics on others' opinion. 'Rebuttal' was shown a few times only during prediction and planning stage. There was no single 'Rebuttal' during interpretation stage. Students tended to easily accept or agree other student's interpretation of data instead of arguing their own ideas. In terms of level of grounds, students mostly provided their ideas without any attempt to justify their position. Especially during planning stage, students tended to suggest or decide ways of measuring or controlling variables without any grounds. They used evidences only a few times during prediction stage. In terms of relation between discourse move and level of grounds, students provided grounds most frequently when they dispute others' claims. The level of grounds were higher when they advocate or clarify their own or others' ideas than when they claim their ideas. The result of this study showed that the quality of elementary science-gifted students' argumentation during science inquiry was undesirable in many ways. Implications for scaffolding and facilitating argumentation during science inquiry were discussed.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.405-414
• /
• 2020

In this study, we analyzed the development of high school students' argumentation through their writings on socio-scientific Issues (SSI) related to the Climate Change Unit in the Earth Science I curriculum. Pre- and post-writing assignments on the two main causes of global warming were analyzed and compared. In addition, an in-depth interview of the focus group was conducted with 7 students who showed a distinct change in the level of argumentation. According to the results, 16 of 52 students remained at the same argumentation level in pre- and post-writing assignments, and students remaining at Level 2 among five levels had difficulty in understanding the Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) structure. Using the TAP structure, 29 of 52 students demonstrated increased argumentation levels in the post-writing assignments. The conclusions include that writing lessons on SSI using the TAP in Earth science classes can improve the level of high school students' argumentative writing, and that the level of students' argumentation can develop with the elaboration of their level of falsification. Also, it is suggested that the science curriculum should increase students' science writing competencies by specifying science writing as one of the goals.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.207-231
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of Critical Thinking Strategy supporting argumentation activities between learners. The research question is whether the form of Critical Thinking Strategy offered to support meaningful interaction of collaborative argumentation between learners influences the knowledge acquisition, learning outcome, and student satisfaction. For this, the collaboration outcome of the group, the level of individual knowledge acquisition, the level of students satisfaction were measured as outcome of argumentation activity and their differences analyzed. This study concludes the following: A comparison of the group that was provided with Critical Thinking Strategy (test group) and the group provided with general argumentation scaffolds (compared group) showed there wasn't statistically significant differences in the quality of the learning outcome of collaboration between the groups and in students satisfaction. But there was significant difference in the degree of individual acquisition depending on the offering of scaffolding for Critical Thinking. Therefore, as premised in this study, supporting meaningful mutual interaction between learners during collaborative argumentation using Critical Thinking Strategy has a positive influence on the individual acquisition of domain knowledge. The group provided with scaffolding for Critical Thinking gained higher effect in the degree of knowledge sharing and individual acquisition of domain knowledge compared to the group provided with general argumentation scaffolding.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.513-531
• /
• 2012

This study was to analyze the characteristic of scientific argumentation in the classes for the gifted of elementary school. The participants of this study were 5 fifth graders and 9 sixth graders, 14 in total, from the basic unit schools for gifted students of J elementary school in Incheon city. And it constituted small scale groups made up of 2~3 students with similar or identical ability in scientific reasoning. It had set up hypothesis for each group before the experiment, and students had a group discussion as a whole after the experiment. Classes were conducted 4 times, all courses were recorded as a sound/video. The ability in scientific reasoning of the students was inspected, making use of SRT II by means of pre-survey, and their argumentation levels were analyzed, utilizing 'Rubric for scientific argumentation course assessment.' As a result, argumentations did not incurred in every class. Analysis in argumentations of the students resulted in low level argumentation. This means argumentation cannot incur based on that with the limit in understanding the principle of experiments over the threshold of textbook no matter that he is an gifted student or not. The student both in formal operational period and transition period (2B/3A), the ability of scientific thinking in upper level, was improved of his argumentative ability in an overall aspect. However, a student of concrete operational period, the ability of scientific thinking in lower level, had argumentation with still lower level even after the experiment at the moment of discussing with the students on the upper level of scientific thinking ability.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.44 no.5
• /
• pp.519-530
• /
• 2024

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.

• 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.41 no.3
• /
• pp.203-220
• /
• 2021

We explored the performance improvement method of automated scoring for scientific argumentation. We analyzed the pattern of argumentation using automated scoring models. For this purpose, we assessed the level of argumentation for student's scientific discourses in classrooms. The dataset consists of four units of argumentation features and argumentation levels for episodes. We utilized argumentation clusters and n-gram to enhance automated scoring accuracy. We used the three supervised learning algorithms resulting in 33 automatic scoring models. As a result of automated scoring, we got a good scoring accuracy of 77.59% on average and up to 85.37%. In this process, we found that argumentation cluster patterns could enhance automated scoring performance accuracy. Then, we analyzed argumentation patterns using the model of decision tree and random forest. Our results were consistent with the previous research in which justification in coordination with claim and evidence determines scientific argumentation quality. Our research method suggests a novel approach for analyzing the quality of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.259-271
• /
• 2018

This study examined the effect of the SSI argumentation program based on social and emotional learning(SEL). The program consisted of 3 stages: (1) express their own feelings about SSI, identify the issues of SSI, and define a goal; (2) think of many possible solutions and envision results through argumentation; (3) select the best solution and make a decision based on warrants, data, and rebuttals. In each stage, the social-emotional strategies of self-awareness, self-management, social-awareness, relationship-management, and responsible decision making were used. Seventeen preservice biology teachers participated in this study during one semester dealing with four socioscientific issues. The results indicated that the preservice teachers, as time went on, became accustomed to expressing identifiable rebuttals, dispute talk, and asking questions. At the first SSI argumentation, argumentation mainly consisted of cumulative talk with no rebuttals, representing level 2 argumentation. Level 3 argumentation represented rebuttals that were implicit and weak, with cumulative talk. In level 2 and 3 argumentation, the preservice teachers represented understanding of others and compassion for self and others. Level 4 argumentation had rebuttals that were explicit, asking critical questions of the opposite sides. In addition, level 5 argumentation represented more than two controversial points with several instances of dispute talk. In levels 4 and 5, the preservice teachers became actively engaged in communication, inquiry self with others, managing vulnerability and negotiation.