• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.11-23
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to analyze the degree of argumentation structure development and factors of development of preservice teachers through SSI related argumentative writings. The study was conducted with 16 preservice teachers that students taking elementary science education theory class in K university located in Chungbuk. The testees wrote six SSI related argumentative writings (once a week), and we examined the degree of argumentation structure development and the change in the recognition of SSI of the preservice teachers by comparing the writings before and after the experiments. The experimental results showed that argumentation structure of the preservice teachers'writings improved and argument level (argument capability) of them also increased as the number of writing was increased. Factors that affect the argumentation structure improvement are mainly argumentation structure education, a number of writings, feedbacks, and subjects related to SSI. In this aspect, the argumentative writing on SSI has the effect of developing scientific sophistication and enhancing the decision-making power of students, and it has positive impacts in science education.

• 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 Association For Science Education
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.321-336
• /
• 2020

We explore automated scoring models of scientific argumentation. We consider how a new analytical approach using a machine learning technique may enhance the understanding of spoken argumentation in the classroom. We sampled 2,605 utterances that occurred during a high school student's science class on molecular structure and classified the utterances into five argumentative elements. Next, we performed Text Preprocessing for the classified utterances. As machine learning techniques, we applied support vector machines, decision tree, random forest, and artificial neural network. For enhancing the identification of rebuttal elements, we used a heuristic feature-engineering method that applies experts' classification of morphemes of scientific argumentation.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.13-24
• /
• 2012

This purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of elementary students' argumentation in science problem solving process. For this study, the two argumentation topics were developed on the basis of Williams and Colomb's argumentation model. The topics of argumentation were the weight of the air and the change of volume according to state of water. The participants of this study were 6th grade students (n=51). Data were analyzed by Williams and Colomb's argumentation model and Kienpointner's argumentation style. The results of this study were as follows: In the argumentation model, most of students had the factors of claim, reason, evidence/data in their statements. But low-achievement students had difficulty in warrant and acknowledge & response. In argumentation style, the frequency of the cause-effect and explanation of example style were higher than other argumentation styles. Some implications were suggested, such as understanding the characteristics of elementary students' argumentation activities and need of educational programs including scientific argumentation.

• 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.

• 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 Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.183-191
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study is to examine the efffcts of science instruction using argumentation, with Tolumin's structure of argument, on students' learning motivation and scientific attitude. In the instruction, well-structured problems selected to be argument, in which interactions among students are stressed. The subjects were classified into two groups: One group is composed of sixty-seven students (experimental group) who were participated in solving processes of the scientific argument tasks, and the other is composed of sixty-nine students (comparative group) who were participated in the traditional teaching method. The results of this study implied that experimental group has a positive effect on students' learning motivation and scientific attitude.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.419-429
• /
• 2015

In this study, we explored students' epistemological framing during scientific argumentation and how interactions among group members influenced group argumentation. Twenty-one gifted science students divided into groups of three or four participated in this study. Students' discussions related to data interpretation concerning the rate of photosynthesis were analyzed. Students' activities were videotaped in groups so the discourse could be transcribed and students' behavioral cues analyzed. Students' epistemological framing has been identified through analysis of their speech and behavioral responses to the anomalous data from the inquiry process. Subsequently, their sources of warrant and group argumentation levels were explored. We found out that group members framed the inquiry in two ways: "understanding phenomena" and "classroom game." Group members whose framing was "understanding phenomena" required other members to justify the anomalous data by examining its validity and reliability, which conclusively demonstrated a high level of argumentation. On the other hand, when group members used "classroom game" to frame their argumentation, they did not recognize the necessity of explaining the anomalous data; rather, these students used simple empirical justification to explain the data, reflecting a low level of argumentation. When students using different epistemological framing disagreed over interpretations of anomalous data throughout the discussion, clashes ensued that resulted in emotional conflict and a lack of discussion. Students' framing shifts were observed during the discussion on which group leaders seemed to have a huge influence. This study lays the foundation for future work on establishing productive framing to prompt scientific argumentation in science classrooms.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.66-75
• /
• 2015

This study is to investigate an argumentation level for elementary school students after analysing an argumentation structure about a socio scientific issue(SSI), and inquire a change of the decision-making according to the refutation materials and empathic situation. This data was collected from the semi-structured interview with the 14 students, grade 6th. For this, the first stage is to present the reading materials about the SSI to the students, let them decision-making and make them argue pro and con about the SSI during the interview. After that, facing with the refutation materials against the existing contention and the empathic situation, the change of the decision-making of the students was conducted. After the research, the level of the argumentation of the students was low, and the students who didn't have the background knowledge about the theme made the decisions according to the values, emotions or intuitions of their own. And the decision-making of the students changed more when presented with the refutation materials and the empathic situation, they were difficult to make the decision because of new information and various stances. Besides, they lacked in the ability that recognize the situation related with their own life, just used the fragmentary knowledge associated with value of life respect. Through these result, it is necessary to produce the refutation materials and empathic materials about the SSI to the students for improving the level of argumentation.

• 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.