• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.59 no.1
• /
• pp.78-87
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to investigate the argumentation of middle school students during the argument-based inquiry. A total of sixty eight 8th grade middle school students participated in this study and they performed six argument-based inquiry programs. Data were collected from two of the latest programs by audio-recording and transcription of each group engaging in argumentation. The study findings showed that; first, the most frequent element of argumentation in the all of stages of the two programs was following order: 'claim' and 'request and response' and 'simple agreement'. The most active argumentation was showed at the designing experiments stage and the most inactive was showed at the generating questions stage. Second, as a result of analyzing the argumentation level for each stage of the argument-based inquiry, a high level of argumentation was shown at the claim and evidence stage, and a low level of argumentation was shown at the generating questions stage in the argumentation structure. As a result of the validity of argumentation, the validity of argumentation was the highest level in the claim and evidence stage.

• 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 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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.717-728
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the argumentation of gifted students in the perspective of rebuttal. Rebuttal is a significant indicator of argumentation quality; it is also an essential component for science learning through interaction. However, most previous research point out insufficient use of rebuttal in student's argumentation. The argumentation of 37 8th grade students, enrolled in institutes for the scientifically gifted in Seoul, are observed and recorded for 4 hours. The argumentation topic is about how to measure the brightness of the sun. Based on Verheij's (2005) five types of rebuttal patterns, the features of rebuttal are analyzed. It is found that students' argumentation include all of the five rebuttal types: rebuttal of the data, the claim, the warrant, warrant's applicability, and connection between data and claim. It is also found that these five types can be categorized in two groups. The first group consists of first three types and is characterized by the disagreement with the validity of what has been said. The second group consists of the last two types and is characterized by the suggestion or additional information for missing links in argumentation.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.273-293
• /
• 2013

This paper briefs the history of LEET(Legal Education Eligibility Test), describes its basic design, classifies the problems of its three subjects: Reading Comprehension, Reasoning and Argumentation, Essay according to their content categories and to their cognitive element categories, and states important features and traits of the whole set of problems, and finally raises some questions about the validity and relevancy of the test.

• 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.35 no.3
• /
• pp.353-361
• /
• 2015

This study focused on the use of peer assessment activities to investigate its the impact on students' argumentation skills in argument-based inquiry. The participants of the study were 106 10th grade students (four classes). Two classes were assigned to the experimental group, and the other two classes were assigned to the comparative group. The experimental group was taught argument-based inquiry through the application of peer assessment activities. The comparative group was taught argument-based inquiry without peer assessments. At the claim and evidence stage, students were asked to evaluate whether peers' claims fit with the evidence and whether peers' explanation of the evidences validity was sufficient. The quality of argumentation used in the students' writing was different in each group. According to the analysis of the summary writing test, the results showed that the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score than the comparative group in argumentation components, including evidence and warrant/backing. In addition, the experimental group used better multimodal representation including explanation of evidence than the comparative group. The findings showed that argument-based inquiry applying peer assessment activities had an effect on the argumentation skills in students' writing.

• 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 Chemical Society
• /
• v.66 no.5
• /
• pp.390-404
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics and changes in epistemic thinking when an argument-based inquiry science class was applied in no face-to-face and face-to-face situations. Participants of this study were 113 8th grade students of four classes from a coed educational middle school in a metropolitan city. Data collection was made over one semester during which ten argument-based inquiry science lessons on five subjects were conducted in both no face-to-face and face-to-face context. As a result of comparing and analyzing students' epistemic thinking in the argumentation of each group's generating question stage, the no face-to-face classes showed higher understanding of contents and more evidence suggestion validity than face-to-face classes did. Claim validity and categories of process in argumentation were higher in face-to-face classes than No face-to-face classes. Students were able to improve their understanding of knowledge through writing by discussing rather than direct communication in no face-to-face situations, and in face-to-face situations, students showed that their thoughts were influenced by interpersonal relationships with the group members.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.135-145
• /
• 2018

In this study, we investigated the argumentations of group and classroom discussions in socioscientific issues (SSI) discussion classes. Twenty-seven high school students participated in the SSI discussion classes on nuclear power generation. We observed and recorded the classes and also conducted semi-structured interviews. For the analyses, we revised a previous framework that was developed to analyze dialogic argumentations in the context of SSI. The analyses of the results indicated that there were more discourse schemes in the classroom discussions than the group discussions which are related to awareness and openness to multiple perspectives, evidence based reasoning, and on-going inquiry and skepticism. And there were few discourse schemes related to moral and ethical sensitivity in the group and classroom discussions. Various grounds, data, and information were presented in the classroom discussions. Students concentrated on carrying their claims and were not able to sympathize with and accept other opinions. Therefore, there were few discourse schemes to reach consensus. In addition, they perceived classroom discussions as competitive and actively rebutted other claims or grounds. The levels of argumentation were also high in the classroom discussions. The group discussions were held in relaxed atmosphere, and they asked the opponents more for clarification or additional information and evidences. However, classroom discussions were held in serious atmosphere, and they actively queried the validity of the claims or grounds. Based on the results, some suggestions to implement SSI discussion classes were discussed.