• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.106-117
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to explore students' argumentation in perspectives of epistemology and psychology and to find out how teacher can promote students' abilities of developing argumentation. The 60 hours of lessons from the interaction between one science teacher (Mr. Physics, who had 35 years of teaching experience) and his 26 students were observed, transcribed, and analyzed using two different analyzing tools; one is from the perspective of epistemology and the other from the perspective of psychology, which can portray how argumentation is constructed. Mr. Physics created the environment where students could promote the quality of scientific argumentation through explicit teaching strategy, Claim-Evidence Approach. The low level of argumentation was portrayed through examples from students' prior knowledge or experience in the form of an Appeal to the instance operation and the Elaboration reasoning skill. Students' own claims were developed through application of knowledge in a different context in the form of an Induction operation and Generativity reasoning skill. Higher level of argumentation was portrayed through Consistency operation with other knowledge or experience and Explanation reasoning skills based on students' ideas with more active teacher's inputs. The teacher in this study played a role as a helper for students to enact identities as competent "sense makers," as an elaborator rather than evaluator to extend students' ideas, and as a mentor to foster and monitor the students' development of ideas of a higher quality. It is critical for teachers to understand the nature of argumentation, which in turn is connected to their explicit teaching strategy with the aim of providing opportunities where students can understand the science enterprise.

• 한국지구과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2005.09a
• /
• pp.220-221
• /
• 2005

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.565-575
• /
• 2017

This study analyzes the epistemic considerations and the argumentation level revealed in the discourse of the key concept of natural selection for science-gifted elementary students. The paper analyzes and discusses the results of a three-student focus group, drawn from a cohort of twenty gifted sixth-grade elementary students. Nature, generality, justification, and audience were used to analyze epistemic consideration. Learning progression in scientific argumentation including argument construction and critique was used to analyze students' scientific argumentation level. The findings are as follows: First, Epistemic considerations in discourse varied between key concepts of natural selection discussed. The nature aspect of epistemic considerations is highly expressed in the discourse for all natural selection key concepts. But the level of generality, justification and audience was high or low, and the level was not revealed in the discourse. In the heredity of variation, which is highly expressed in terms of generality of knowledge, the linkage with various phenomena against the acquired character generated a variety of ideas. These ideas were used to facilitate engagement in argumentation, so that all three students showed the level of argumentation of suggestions of counter-critique. Second, students tried to explain the process of speciation by using concepts that were high in practical epistemic considerations level when explaining the concept of speciation, which is the final natural selection key concept. Conversely, the concept of low level of epistemic considerations was not included as an explanation factor. The results of this study suggest that students need to analyze specific factors to understand why epistemological decisions are made by students and how epistemological resources are used according to context through various epistemological resources. Analysis of various factors influencing epistemological decisions can be a mediator of the instructor who can improve the quality and level of the argumentation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.11-26
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers' responsive practices in whole class discussion after small group argumentation and the underlying epistemological framing. Three teachers and 84 students participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities about the sensory system. We recorded both their discussions in the classes and our interviews with the teachers, which were transcribed for analysis. The results of the analysis showed that the teachers' responsive practices and the epistemological framing were categorized into four types. By framing the discussion as 'reaching the correct answer through discussion,' the teacher focused on whether students' ideas corresponded to scientific concepts and transferred scientific ideas to the students. By framing the discussion as 'eliciting appropriate conceptual resources and developing them into a scientific idea through critical evaluation,' the teacher engaged in the students' discussion as another participant, and considered the small groups' arguments as resources that could develop into scientific concepts. By framing the discussion as 'sharing small groups' arguments,' the teacher responded by asking for clarification of each group's argument, considering it as a valid argument in its own way. By framing the discussion as 'reaching a consented argument through critical evaluation,' the teacher negotiated students' critical evaluation and revision of the arguments. We explored the implications and limitations of each type of responsive practice and considered that the results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies in argumentation activities.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.160-175
• /
• 2004

This study examined the knowledge and practices of scientific inquiry displayed by three student teachers and two beginning teachers at secondary levels. Observations using the instrument of OTOP designed by the research team of OCEPT (Oregon Collaborative for Excellent in the Preparation of Teachers) generalized similar teaching strategies of scientific inquiry between student and beginning teachers, such as using group work for students' first hand experience, using concrete materials for experimentation or visual tools for demonstration, using questions for factual knowledge mainly without opportunities to understand how scientific knowledge is constructed. Those scientific inquiry activities were very confirmative ones to follow the steps without opportunities of understanding nature of science or nature of scientific inquiry. However, all participants in this study hold knowledge of scientific inquiry envisioned by the National Science Education Standards [NSES] (NRC, 1996), where students identify their hypothesis, use critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations through argumentation as well as experimentation. An inconsistent relationship between participating teachers knowledge and practices about scientific inquiry resulted from their lack of pedagogy skills of implementing it in the classroom. Providing opportunities for these teachers to reflect on their beliefs and practices about scientific inquiry was recommended for the future study. Furthermore, increasing college faculty interest in new teaching approaches for upgrading the content knowledge of student teachers and beginning teachers was recommended as a solution, since those teachers showed evidence of influence by college faculties at universities in their pedagogy skills.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.75-87
• /
• 2023

This study analyzed correlation among peer evaluation, self-evaluation, and instructor evaluation of argumentation writing conducted in the 'Biology logic and essay' class. To this end, 14 pre-service biology teachers wrote argumentation four times, and peer evaluation, self-evaluation, and instructor evaluation were conducted on these results. The peer evaluation for argumentation writing averaged 2.70 points, the self-evaluation average was 2.68 points, and the instructor evaluation average was 2.71. Looking at the average of each sub-evaluation area, scientific knowledge was the highest in peer evaluation, and the composition area was the highest in self-evaluation. In addition, the area of scientific knowledge was the highest in the instructor evaluation. As a result of examining the standard deviation, the standard deviation of self-evaluation was the largest. As a result of analyzing the correlation between evaluation types, there was a high correlation between peer evaluation and instructor evaluation, and there was a moderate correlation between self-evaluation and instructor evaluation. On the other hand, there was no significant correlation between peer evaluation and self-evaluation. As a result of analyzing the correlation by evaluation area, there was no significant correlation between peer evaluation and self-evaluation in all four areas of scientific knowledge, scientific argumentation, composition, and expression. On the other hand, in the analysis between peer evaluation and instructor evaluation, there was a significant correlation in the areas of scientific knowledge, scientific argumentation, and composition. In addition, there was a significant correlation between self-evaluation and instructor evaluation only in the area of expression. The results of this study show that peer evaluation is highly likely to be applied in the 'Subject logic and essay' class. It also suggests that it is necessary to subdivide evaluation criteria according to the type of evaluation in order to use peer evaluation and self-evaluation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.6
• /
• pp.739-753
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics and limitations of a novice teachers's responsive teaching practice, who framed argumentation productively. One novice teacher and two eighth-grade classes participated in this study. Two of the small student groups with active teacher intervention were selected as focus groups. Students engaged in argumentation activity where they built an argument for hearing if the eardrum was torn. We recorded the class and interviews with the teacher and the students, which were transcribed for use in the analysis of the teacher's responsive teaching practices and epistemological, positional framing. We discovered that teacher thought that he should position himself as a facilitator to encourage students to present ideas clearly and to reach consensus. His framing was consistent in responsive teaching practices. Positioning himself as a facilitator, after he framed the discussion as idea sharing discussion by eliciting and probing students' idea, he framed the discussion as argumentative discussion by taking up students' idea and pointing out disagreement between them. As a result, members of small group 1 engaged in argumentative discussion and reached consensus. However, the teacher's productive framing did not guarantee students' productive argumentation practice. In small group 2, he did not elicit and probe students' ideas successfully. As a result, members of small group 2 did not engaged in argumentative discussions. He responded limitedly to the lack of students' conceptions because of lack of understanding about learners. Also, he mainly attended to students' reasoning, and not to students' framing about argumentation because he considered argumentation only as a tool for conceptual learning. The result of this study will contribute to the establishment of responsive teaching in science classrooms.

• 한국지구과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2005.02a
• /
• pp.201-202
• /
• 2005

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.63-75
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students' productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone's vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students' epistemological framing and the teacher's responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students' thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher's understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students' ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students' ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students' ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students' productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies to support students' productive framing in science classrooms.

• 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.