• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.9
• /
• pp.1470-1488
• /
• 2012

This study examined changes in the quality of written arguments produced by freshman students in general chemistry laboratory classes using the SWH approach over a semester; difference in the quality of written argument between the original writing template (year I) and the extended writing template (year II); and any difference between Total Argument and Holistic Argument scores. 140 writing samples from 14 students on the year I and 228 samples from 19 students on the year II were collected. Results indicated that despite fluctuations, the students were producing stronger argument by the end of semester compared to the beginning of the semester. Original SWH template group received significantly higher argument scores than extended SWH template group. For the most of year I laboratory investigations, there was no significant difference in the quality of argument between Total Argument and Holistic Argument scores. An implication of this study would be to provide opportunities for students to practice constructing arguments using the original SWH writing template including questions, claims, evidence, and reflection.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.7
• /
• pp.1099-1108
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of argument structure on students' writing in implementation of argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Participants of this study were 108 8th grade students (three classes). Two classes (68 students) were assigned to an experimental group, and the other class (35 students) was assigned to a comparative group. The experimental group was taught argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach, while the comparative group was taught with the traditional teaching strategy. After implementing this program, the two groups were asked to write summaries using structured argumentation in their writing. The result of this study showed that the experimental group used better argument structure and multimodal representation such as pictures, graphs and examples in evidence than the comparative group. The quality of evidence used in the students' writing was different between two groups. Students of the comparative group only listed fragments of science concepts for evidence to support their claims, but students of the experimental group explained science concepts by giving specific examples. The findings show that argument-based inquiry using the SWH approach was effective on argument structure in students' writing.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.64 no.6
• /
• pp.389-400
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Argument-based Inquiry activities on the claims and evidence in elementary students' science writing. Participants were thirty three fifth grade elementary school students and argument-based inquiry activities on five topics were implemented. We analyzed the Summary Writing samples written by students to investigate the effect of the Argument-based inquiry activities on elementary students' claims and evidence in their science writing, and also analyzed the writing samples of the experimental group to which the Argument-based inquiry activities were implemented, to examine the change of claims and evidence. The results of this study showed that the mean of experimental group was significantly higher than that of the comparison group. As a result of analyzing claims and evidence in Summary Writing of experimental group, the level of claim and evidence has tended to increase gradually as the number of classes progresses.

• 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 The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.6
• /
• pp.583-592
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing on student's modeling ability. For this study, 66 students (three classes) from the 7th grade were selected and of these, 43 students (two classes) were assigned to two experimental groups while the other 23 students (one class) were assigned to comparative group. In the experimental groups, one group (22 students) was Argument-based multimodal Representation and Modeling (AbRM), and the other group (21 students) was Argument-based Modeling (AbM). Modeling ability consisted of identifying the problem, structuring of scientific concepts, adequacy of claim and evidence and index of multimodal representation. As for the modeling ability, AbRM group scored significantly higher than the other groups, AbM group was significantly higher than comparative group. The four sub-elements of modeling ability in the AbRM group was significantly higher than the other groups statistically and AbM group scored significantly higher than comparative group. From these results, the argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing was effective on students' modeling ability. Students organized or expressed the model and evaluated or modified it through the process of argument-based modeling using scientific writing and the exchange of opinions with others by scientific language as argument and writing.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.107-122
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to investigate trends in research studies on scientific argument and writing in Korea. 118 research studies published from 2004 to 2013 have been collected and analyzed. Many of the research studies focused on developing teaching strategies, analyzing contents of scientific argument and writing, and effects on student learning. More than half of the studies were conducted with elementary and middle school students while studies with pre-service, in-service teachers or high school students were relatively rare. Most research studies were conducted within regular school hour context and participants were given relevant information/education prior to argument and writing activities. Many research have analyzed student growth in scientific attitudes and we would suggest that further studies should investigate student growth in scientific concepts, scientific inquiry, and critical thinking. The structure and process of argument or the content and form of writing have been analyzed. The quality of argument and scientific concepts embedded in argument and writing should be investigated more in future researches.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.323-336
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to evaluate students' written arguments embedded in scientific inquiry investigations using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Argument components defined in this study are questions, claims, questions-claims relationship, evidence, claims-evidence relationship, multiple modal representations, and reflection. A set of criteria for evaluating each argument component was developed to evaluate writing samples of students from college freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. Results indicate that students produced, on average, moderate to powerful questions, claims, and evidence. They also constructed reasonable questions-claims relationship and claims-evidence relationship. Compared to other component scores, the average score for reflection was relatively low. Overall, the average Total Argument score was 21.4 out of a possible 36, that is, the quality of the written arguments using the SWH approach during a series of inquiry-based chemistry laboratory investigations was moderate to powerful. The findings of this study suggest that students, on average, developed reasonable scientific arguments generated as part of scientific inquiry. In other words, students are capable of putting together reasonable arguments as they participate in inquiry-based laboratory classrooms.

• 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 The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.8
• /
• pp.787-794
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study was to examine the science writing and perception of students who experienced the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach. One hundred and eight grade 11 students were assigned to an experimental group, while 99 grade 12 students were assigned to a comparative group in their earth science classes. Students' science writings on two science topics were scored using an analytic rubric developed in this study. The comparison of experimental and comparative groups in science writing was carried out using an independent two samples t-test. Students' perception on the instruction was examined using an open-ended survey. Science writing by the experimental group scored significantly higher than that by the comparative group, except for the big idea of 'green energy'. For six concepts in 'green energy' and four concepts in 'plate tectonics, there were more students in the experimental group than the comparative group who indicated them in their science writing. Students' perception on the instruction was positive in that they mentioned planning and conducting inquiry, citing of claims and evidence, and developing inquiry questions were helpful in science learning. The results of this study imply that the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach should be implemented in science classrooms for students to develop a conceptual framework for science.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.7
• /
• pp.1329-1342
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between the change of beginning teachers' beliefs about a lesson and that of teaching practice and argument-based inquiry using science writing. Participants were three science teachers (A, B, and C) from different middle schools. Classroom observation and interview data were collected and transcribed for analysis. A Summary Writing test was also administered to examine whether there was an improvement in students' learning. The results indicated that the interaction between the teachers and their students developed, which is concluded as an improvement in the teaching practice. Teacher A and B also reported that teacher-student interaction had improved. Teacher A and C came to understand that argument-based inquiry using science writing classes constituted learner-centered instruction. The result from the Summary Writing Test showed the impact of the changes in teaching practice and in teachers' awareness of students' learning as well as produced meaningfully higher scores than compared groups on the rhetorical structure of all the specific areas in teacher A's school and on the scientific concept at B and C's schools.