• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.59-72
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to show that epistemic considerations can be used meaningfully in the argumentation of elementary students, and to provide data on students' epistemic considerations that will be the basis for designing and evaluating scientific argumentation. The epistemic considerations in students' small group argumentations were explored based on Epistemic Considerations in Students' Epistemologies in Practice: EIP' suggested by Berland et al. (2016). The major results of this study are as follows: First, epistemic considerations in elementary school students' small group argumentation appeared in all four aspects: Nature, generality, justification and audience. The epistemic considerations varied according to context in each discussion situation. Second, epistemic considerations did not exist independently. They influenced each other and helped to reveal new types of considerations. The results of this study confirmed that argumentation can be used in elementary school science class. Understanding how students are involved in argumentation and how these epistemic considerations can affect students' argumentation can be helpful to teachers who design and evaluate small group argumentation. Students' achievement level affected epistemic considerations but learning approach types did not affect on. In addition, epistemic considerations may have a positive or negative effect on each other depending on the discussion situation in the process of interaction. So consideration of normative argumentation rules and teaching strategies should be considered in order for epistemic considerations to positively affect each other.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.1037-1049
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to explore how the flow of discourse move and their reasoning process in dialogic argumentation during group modeling on excretion. Five groups of three to four students in the second grade of a middle school participated in the modeling practice of a Gifted Center. Analysis was conducted on argumentation during the modeling activity in which students should explain how the waste product (ammonia) leaves the body. It was found that there was a sequential argumentative process-tentative consensus, solving the uncertainty, and consensus. There were several discourse moves - 'claim' and 'counterclaim' in the stage of tentative consensus, 'query' and 'clarification of meaning' in the stage of solving the uncertainty, and 'change of claim' in the stage of consensus. Students participated in the dialogic argumentation by constructing argument collaboratively for reaching a consensus. Critical questioning in the stage of solving the uncertainty and reasoning in the stage of consensus were the impact factors of dialogic argumentation. By answering the critical questions, students changed their claims or suggested new claims by defending or rebutting previous claims. Students justified group claims with diverse argumentation scheme and scientific reasoning to reach a group consensus. These findings have implication for science educators who want to adopt dialogic argumentation in science classes.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.5
• /
• pp.479-490
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to develop an argument-based modeling strategy, utilizing writing and argumentation for communication in science education. We need to support students and teachers who have difficulty in modeling in science education, this strategy focuses on development of four kinds of factors as follows: First, awareness of problems, recognizing in association with problems by observing several problematic situations. Second is science concept structuralization suggesting enough science concepts by organization for scientific explanation. The third is claim-evidence appropriateness that suggests appropriate representation as evidence for assertions. Last, the use of various representations and multimodal representations that converts and integrates these representations in evidence suggestion. For the development of these four factors, this study organized three stages. 'Recognition process' for understanding of multimodal representations, and 'Interpretation process' for understanding of activity according to multimodal representations, 'Application process' for understanding of modeling through argumentation. This application process has been done with eight stages of 'Asking questions or problems - Planning experiment - Investigation through observation on experiment - Analyzing and interpreting data - Constructing pre-model - Presenting model - Expressing model using multimodal representations - Evaluating model - Revising model'. After this application process, students could have opportunity to form scientific knowledge by making their own model as scientific explanation system for the phenomenon of the natural world they observed during a series of courses of modeling.

• 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.35 no.3
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2015

Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distinctive features (e.g. interdisciplinary, controversial, value-laden, etc.), Toulmin's model would not fit into the context. Therefore, we attempted to develop an analytical framework for SSI dialogic argumentation by addressing the concepts of 'discourse clusters' and 'discourse schemes.' Discourse clusters indicated a series of utterances created for a similar dialogical purpose in the SSI contexts. Discourse schemes denoted meaningful discourse units that well represented the features of SSI reasoning. In this study, we presented six types of discourse clusters and 19 discourse schemes. We applied the framework to the data of students' group discourse on SSIs (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear energy, etc.) in order to verify its validity and applicability. The results indicate that the framework well explained the overall flow, dynamics, and features of students' discourse on SSI.

• 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 Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.589-600
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of science writing heuristic(SWH) instruction based on Tolumin's structure of argument, on students' science process skills and scientific attitude. In the instruction, unstructured problems were selected with issues to be argued, in which interactions among students are stressed. This research involved 58 students of 5th grade at an elementary school, and divided them into an experimental group with 29 and a control group with 29. The former was treated with instruction using argumentation as SWH, while the latter with conventional ways of instruction. Science process skills and scientific attitude were compared between the two groups and within each of the groups. The results implied that science instruction using science writing heuristic is effective in improving learning science process skills and scientific attitude.

• 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.

• 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 The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.45-61
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore students' epistemic goals and considerations in designing an experiment task and to investigate how a shift in the students' epistemology affected their argumentation. Four 7th grade students were selected as a focus group. According to the results, when they designed their own experiment, their epistemic goal was 'scientific sense-making' and their epistemic considerations - the perception of the nature of the knowledge product was 'this experiment should explain how something happened', the perception of the justification was 'we need to use our interpretation of the data' and the perception of the audience was 'constructor' - contributed to designing their experiment actively. When students tried to select one argument, their epistemic goal shifted to 'winning a debate', showing 'my experiment is better than the others' with the perception of the audience, 'competitor'. Consequently, students only deprecated the limits of different experiment so that they did not explore the meaning of each experiment design deeply. Eventually, student A's experiment design was selected due to time restrictions. When they elaborated upon their result, their epistemic goal shifted to 'scientific sensemaking', reviewing 'how this experiment design is scientifically valid' through scientific justification - we need justification to make members accept it - acting as 'cooperator'. Consequently, all members engaged in a productive argumentation that led to the development of the group result. This study lays the foundation for future work on understanding students' epistemic goals and considerations to prompt productive argumentation in science classrooms.