• 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.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.40 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2020

In scientific argumentation, students can use rebuttals to escape uncertainty, which, in this case, can be defined as a vague and fuzzy feeling about other students' explanations. As rebuttals can play a critical role in the sophistication of arguments and the alleviation of uncertainty, this study aims to understand the dynamics of uncertainty and rebuttals by exploring the context of the uncertainty experienced by elementary school students in the argumentation of "Why did the kidney beans not germinate?" and to get insights based on the research results. Twenty fourth-grade students and their homeroom teacher in Kyong-Ki province, South Korea, took part in the research. Students engaged in argumentation in five small groups of four students. The researcher collected qualitative data through video transcriptions, student interviews, and field notes. In the data analysis, the researcher employed the constant comparative method to explore in what context students experienced uncertainty and how they used rebuttals. The results of this study were as follows: First, students tried to reduce their uncertainty through argumentation on why the kidney beans did not germinate. Second, students used elaboration-oriented rebuttals, personal opinion-oriented rebuttals, and blame-oriented rebuttals to reduce this uncertainty. However, when they used blame-oriented rebuttals, their uncertainty and negative emotions increased. Third, intervention by the teacher led students to stop using blame-oriented rebuttals. Instead, they employed elaboration-oriented rebuttals to explore why the kidney beans would not sprout, and finally, they escaped uncertainty by discovering an appropriate explanation. Based on the findings of this study, the researcher discussed how the interaction between uncertainty and elaboration-oriented rebuttals could shape and facilitate argument development in elementary school students.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.5
• /
• pp.637-654
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to investigate the development of scientific conceptual understanding through a process-centered assessment that visualizes the process of scientific argumentation. In this study, 353 high school students and five teachers participated in the scientific argumentation. As a result of analyzing students' utterances on the elements of argumentation, scientific concepts in intragroup were embodied through query and clarification of meaning, and organized through agreement and rebuttal. In intergroup argumentation, scientific concepts were elaborated through query, clarification of meaning, and change of claim. Teachers were able to understand the process of argumentation through small-group activity sheets where the process was visualized, thereby providing feedback and improving the class. Based on the results, the scientific argumentation of visualizing the process was found not only to allow students to perform self-assessment and peer-assessment but also to help teachers understand the argumentation process. The findings of this study guide process-centered assessment in the science curriculum and are expected to contribute to the promotion of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.5
• /
• pp.919-929
• /
• 2015

This study aims to develop a modeling-based learning program about geologic structures and to reveal the relationship between the argumentation patterns and levels of students' mental models. Participants included 126 second grade high school students in four sessions of modeling-based learning regarding continental drift, oceanic ridges, transform faults, and characteristics of faults. A modeling-based learning program was implemented in two classes of the experimental group, and teacher-centered traditional classes were carried out for the other students in the comparison group. Science achievement scores and the distribution of students' mental models in experimental and comparison groups were quantitatively compared. The video-taped transcripts of five teams' argumentation were qualitatively analyzed based on the analytic framework developed in the study. The analytic framework for coding students' argumentation in the modeling-based learning was composed of five components of TAP and the corresponding components containing alternative concepts. The results suggest that the frequencies of causal two-dimensional model and cubic model were high in the experimental group, while the frequencies of simple two-dimensional model and simple cross sectional model were high in the comparison group. The higher the frequency of claims, an argumentation pattern was proven successful, and the level of mental model was higher. After the rebuttal was suggested, students observed the model again and claimed again according to new data. Therefore, the model could be confirmed as having a positive impact on students' argumentation process.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.7
• /
• pp.1418-1430
• /
• 2013

In this study, we investigated the writing process components and the writing strategies that appeared in the process of argumentative writing through students' think-alouds and semi-structured interviews. The subjects were 18 eighth graders. During argumentative writing, students were asked to decide whether they agreed with the given argument or not on the basis of information provided in the writing task. We categorized the writing process components and the writing strategies by analyzing the protocols of students' think-alouds and interviews, and evaluated the level of their written compositions. The analyses of the results indicated that the writing process components of argumentative writing showed different characteristics from those of problem solving writing in several components such as setting goals, organizing an outline, and evaluating content. In addition, the writing process component 'coordinating information' was newly discovered in argumentative writing. The writing strategies were categorized into four groups by the types of decision making (reflective/intuitive) and the existence of outline organization: Reflective decision making and outline organization, reflective decision making and no outline organization, intuitive decision making and outline organization, and intuitive decision making and no outline organization. Students with the reflective decision making and outline organization strategy were found to get the highest scores in written composition in terms of the relationship between the argument and its grounds, the rebuttal of the opposing argument, and the structure of the writing. Educational implications are discussed.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.569-591
• /
• 2022

This study aims to investigate the educational effects of the visualization of heat conduction using a thermal imaging camera on elementary school students through small group activities. It endeavors to explain the reason for why metal feels cold. The scholars conducted in-depth interviews before and after learning the unit "Temperature and Heat" for four students in fifth grade in Seoul. Recorded video and audio materials of the activities, their outputs, and journals of scholars were collected, reviewed, and analyzed. The result demonstrated that visualizing heat conduction using the thermal imaging camera aroused curiosity and provided an opportunity for sophisticated observation and integrated thinking. In addition, the visualization of the heat conduction phenomenon was used as the basis for interpretation and rebuttal for active communication during the small group activities of the students. Consequently, the students changed their non-scientific beliefs, refined their knowledge, and developed their mental models through a small group discussion based on a thermal image video.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.805-822
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to explore the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. The subjects were 14, 8th graders in a Science Gifted Center. The group discussion was made possible by using triggering questions that can be answered based on experiences of hands-on activities such as a siphon pump analogy model activity and a dissection of pigs' hearts. Despite participating in same activities, the groups showed different model development patterns: unchanged, persuasive, and elaborated. Due to the critical revising, the group's explanatory model was elaborated and developed in the added and elaborated pattern. As critical revising is a core element of the developing model, it is important to promote a group interaction so that students become critical and receptive. The pedagogical analogy model and conflict situation enabled students to present elaborated reasoning. The Inquiry activity with the pedagogical analogy model promote students' spontaneous reasoning in relation to direct experience. Therefore offering a pedagogical analogy model will help students evaluate, revise and develop their models of concerned phenomena in science classroom. Conflict situation by rebuttal enable students to justify more solid and elaborate a model close to the target model. Therefore, teachers need to facilitate a group atmosphere for spontaneous conflict situation.

• 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.