• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.5
• /
• pp.694-708
• /
• 2011

In this study, we developed tasks including cognitive scaffolding for students to explain scientific phenomena using valid evidences in science classroom and sought to investigate how tasks influence the development of small group scientific argumentation. Heterogeneous small groups in gender and achievement were organized in one classroom and the tasks were applied to the class. Students were asked to write down their own ideas, share individual ideas, and then choose the most plausible opinion in a group. One group was chosen for investigating the effect of tasks on the development of small group argumentation through the analysis of discourse transcripts of the group in 10 lessons, students' semi-structured interview, field note, and students' pre- and post argument tests. The discrepant argument examples were included in the tasks for students to refute an argument presenting evidences. Moreover, comparing opinion within the group and persuading others were included in the tasks to prompt small group argumentation. As a result, students' post-argument test grades were increased than pre-test grades, and they argued involving evidences and reasoning. The high level of arguments has appeared with high ratio of advanced utterances and lengthening of reasoning chain as lessons went on. Students had elaborate claims involving valid evidences and reasoning by reflective and critical thinking while discussing about the tasks. In addition, tasks which could have various warrants based on the data led to students' spontaneous participation. Therefore, this study has significance in understanding the context of developing small group argumentation, providing information about teaching and learning context prompting students to construct arguments in science inquiry lessons in middle school.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.492-512
• /
• 2013

The aim of this study is to investigate the change of science writing ability between pre and post-science writing which was written before and after argumentation activity and to show how argumentation influences the science writing ability. To fulfill this aim, eight 5th grade students were chosen from an elementary school. They were involved in the nine science writing themes which was compose of scientific contexts and social scientific contexts. Students' science works in argumentation and writing activity were collected and analysed based on four domains of framework for science writing ability: scientific thinking, logic, creativity and expression ability. The result of this study showed that the affirmative change of four domains of science writing ability on post-science writing written after argumentation was observed. Also, an affirmative change was observed in all of the scientific and social scientific themes. A lot of changes of the scientific writing ability were observed especially when the themes were familar to student. The degree of change depended on the level of the student, but overall it influenced all participating students with a positive improvement for their scientific writing ability. Students with high grade of academic achievement showed high improvement in science writing ability, but students who had low grade of academic achievement also showed a positive improvement in science writing ability.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.203-220
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to develop a rubric for assessing students' scientific argumentation. Through the analysis of relevant literature related to argument in science education for developing rubric, the procedure in development and the category in assessment for rubric were elicited. According to the general procedure in developing rubric, the standard for evaluating the argumentation derived three categories such as a form, contents, and attitude. The form category was further segmented into sub-functions composition, claim, ground, and conclusion in the whole. The category for contents was segmented into sub-functions understanding, credibility, and inference. And the category for attitude was set to sub-functions participatory level and openness. The standard for evaluating sub-functions in each of the categories formed in this way was minutely suggested with five stages. The rubric, which was developed on the basis of literature, was inspected through a regular seminar in one expert in science education and fellow researchers. The rubric, which was developed in the early days, was again modified by being verified on problem and improvement matter after being entrusted to four experts in scientific education. And, the finally-completed rubric indicated to be high with 0.96 in the content validity index by being verified the validity by the four experts in science education. The developed rubric will lead to being able to increase the understanding about demonstration in students, and to being available for being utilized as the criteria for developing the argumentation process program and for evaluating the argumentation activity.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.157-175
• /
• 2009

This paper offers a critical review of a newspaper argument regarding the problems of high school education assessment for university entrance examination system in the United Kingdom. The media account raises three sets of questioning to hold that the nation's long-standing A-levels have failed and is no longer viable as a high-stakes test. However, it is found that the writer's argumentations involving misleading conceptions can be deconstructed because of invalid reasoning and unreliable evidence. So, it is proposed that a reasonable solution to replace the discredited A-level exams should be to adopt an eclectic approach for assessing candidates' multiple capabilities; performance, potentiality and critical thinking skills. These criteria for component-oriented assessments are designed to measure their high school academic achievements and intellectual capacity for tertiary education; in the process of such measurement, critical-logical reasoning abilities for sound judgment and problem-solving tasks should be incorporated with the basic precondition that each university possesses its own discretion for the determination of adequate proportions to reflect each of the assessment outcomes. It is, therefore, expected that this critical review will inspire the readers to understand aspects of assessment as an educational field and to confirm how seriously they may be misguided by a distorted media argumentation without substantive background knowledge.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.486-500
• /
• 2013

This study is conducted to examine how epistemic reasoning and argument structures of students vary according to data sources used in the process of argumentation implemented in the context of inquiry. To this end, three argument tasks using first-hand data and three argument tasks using second-hand data were developed and applied to the unit on 'Nutrition of Plants' for first year middle school students. According to the results of this study, epistemic reasoning of students manifested during the process of argumentation and varied according to data sources. While most students composed explanations with phenomenon-based or relation-based reasoning in argumentation using first-hand data, all the small groups composed explanations that included model-based reasoning in argumentation using second-hand data. In the case of arguments including phenomenon-based or relation-based reasoning, students described only observable characteristics, with warrants omitted from arguments in many cases. On the other hand, in the case of arguments that included model-based reasoning, explanations were composed by combining the results of observations with theoretical knowledge, with warrants more apparent in their arguments.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.446-459
• /
• 2024

This study aims to examine the development and learning process of the argumentative abilities in elementary school students with regards to learning science. Toward this end, the SSI argumentation education program was implemented in conjunction with the science curriculum for sixth-grade students across 10 months. In this process, the scoring criteria in terms of formal and content aspects were developed and used to assess their argumentative text analysis and expression abilities. The results were as follows: First, the type of SSI influenced their ability to analyze argumentative texts. However, their formal and content aspects improved as learning progressed. Second, with regards to the formal aspect associated with the ability to express argumentative texts, reasons were initially most frequently cited. Over time, incorporating evidence to support these reasons and the use of rebuttal also increased. Third, in terms of content aspect, the level of use of all elements increased as learning progressed; however, level of acknowledgments and rebuttal elements exhibited a relatively slower progress. In summary, ability of the students to analyze and express argumentative texts improved as they increasingly gained experience in learning about argumentation. The study deduced that elementary school students can develop their argumentative abilities through appropriate learning support, such as teacher feedback, along with implementation of the SSI argumentation education program over an extended period. Based on these results, the study proposes the development of SSI materials and incorporation of SSI argumentative writing in the science curriculum.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.569-580
• /
• 2013

This study examined how a Structured Reading Framework (SRF) is related to improving students' critical thinking ability in an argument-based inquiry approach, called the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. A total of 75 $8^{th}$ graders participated in the study, with 34 in the control group and 41 in the treatment group. The gains in critical thinking skills were compared between two groups, and relationships among the components of the reading framework and the critical thinking skills were explored at the group level. Result indicates that the treatment group who used the SRF had larger gains in critical thinking scores than control group who used the Original Reading Framework (ORF). In addition, results show that the correlations between Reading Framework (RF) components and critical thinking scores are statistically significant in the treatment group, while no correlations exist in the control group. It appears that using the SRF have an impact on developing students' critical thinking ability by providing a scaffold to assist argumentation practice.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.212-221
• /
• 2006

The purposes of this study were to examine the characteristics of teacher help in small group Thinking Science(TS) activities and analyze the way students respond to teacher help. For this study, twenty-four 5th grade and twenty-four 7th grade students were selected, to undertake TS activities. Out of the 8 activities students participated in, the verbal interactions in activity 4 and 6, by students in four small groups, which incorporated relatively active argumentation was analyzed. Students' cognitive level was identified through a science reasoning task and the students were grouped heterogeneously according to their cognitive level. This study showed that teachers predominately used simple confirmation questions in preference to metacognitive question. Also, teacher help varied according to one's personal traits, work experience and degree of activity recognition. It was discovered that when the teacher provided student appropriate metacognitive questions and sufficient feedback, students actively engaged in argumentation. On the other hand, when the teacher asked simple confirmation questions and interfered in the activity, students did not participate in argumentation actively.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.189-203
• /
• 2008

Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL), by offering accurate and effective data collection and real-time graphs, enables students to reduce experiment time and, thereby, have deeper discussions concerning experimental results. This helps to emphasis the essential aspect of scientific inquiry; the process communication. Therefore, this study examined secondary school earth science MBL lessons with regards to the five basic aspects of scientific inquiry: "Asking", "Evidencing", "Explaining", "Evaluating" and "Communicating". It then investigated the level of argumentative communication between the students and teachers and also among the students themselves. For this study, three classroom activities were observed and videotaped, and teaching materials, textbooks and students' notes were collected. The transcribed data were analyzed from the perspective of scientific inquiry level and argument frames. The results showed that the scientific inquiry levels of the three classes were similar, except for the "Communicating" aspect, which appeared in only one episode. "Asking" was carried out by the teacher and then students were directed to collect certain data in the "Evidencing" stage. Furthermore, students were given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanations and connections through the "Explaining" and "Evaluating" stages. In the argumentation analysis, most argumentative communication was identified as being associated with a given procedure, rather than with any scientific phenomena. In only one episode, did "Communicating" relate directly to any scientific phenomena. It can be concluded, that although MEL places emphasis on communication for authentic scientific inquiry, the environment required for such inquiry and argumentative communication can not be easily created in the classroom. Therefore, in order for authentic inquiry to take place in the MBL classroom, teachers should provide students with the opportunity to develop meaningful argumentation and scaffolding abilities.

• (The) Korean Journal of Educational Psychology
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.461-478
• /
• 2008

This study attempted to test whether or not students' collaborative argumentation and explanation activity while using concept mapping did improve understanding on texts. Total of 52 college students participated in this study. They were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. The experiment lasted for two or three weeks and students were tested on comprehension level of a text material that they have studied over the period. As a result, with two independent factors of explanation and collaboration, there was a significant interaction effect without main effects. That is, individual did better when they did have to explain what they were doing. However, this is not the case when students collaborate. Students in the paired condition, they did better when they do not have to explain what they were doing with concept maps. This study showed efficiency with using computerized software does not always guarantee higher understanding on text materials. Instructional contexts and variables, collaboration and explanation, needs to be considered. Collaborating with others and explaining their own learning processes should be carefully designed when they are combined with concept mapping contexts. How to minimize learning obstacles from discussing ideas with others are a critical issue for future research.