• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.400-413
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to investigate middle school students' processes of argumentation in science lessons and to compare students' argumentation in different contexts (socioscientific context/scientific context). An argumentation-based teaching-learning strategy was used to enhance quality in students' arguments in science lessons. Data were collected from five lessons by video- and audio-recording eight groups of four students each engaging in argumentation. The quality and frequency of students' argumentation was analyzed using an assessment framework based on the work of Toulmin. The findings showed that: (a) there was improvement in the quality of students' argumentation; (b) there were no differences in the structure of argumentation and percentage of explanatory argumentation components as well as dialogic argumentation components in different argumentation contexts. The results of this study showed that students' argumentation can be enhanced with strategic argumentation teaching-learning.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.1007-1026
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to develop analytic framework for dialogic argumentation to show the context and flow visualizing interactions of argumentation, to be able to present quality of argumentation specifically. For this, we formulated a method of the argumentation diagram using feature of diagram simple and structurally visualizing interrelation between argument components, and then quantified quality of argumentation to argument level score on this basis. We have developed the learning material for argumentation about a vertical circular motion and used the obtained translations from applying it in developing the framework. We chose argument statements among full transcript and then coded as Toulmin's argument components, and these codes was effectively arranged and linked to show argumentation diagram. Results by argumentation diagram could be useful understanding of interactive argumentation context and the flow and present frequency, the combination of argument elements, rough qualitative level of argumentation. To quantify argumentation quality, we gave different scores to different link lines reflecting indication of argumentation quality like that diversity of argument component, justification, presence or absence of rebuttals. The process of identification of argument level is very simple, qualitative level of argumentation represented as concrete score could present various and concrete argument level. Developed analytic framework might contribute to argumentation research field, because it can present effectively dialogic argumentation result. Also, various analysis cases might guide designing an effective argumentation practice and circular motion learning.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.203-220
• /
• 2021

We explored the performance improvement method of automated scoring for scientific argumentation. We analyzed the pattern of argumentation using automated scoring models. For this purpose, we assessed the level of argumentation for student's scientific discourses in classrooms. The dataset consists of four units of argumentation features and argumentation levels for episodes. We utilized argumentation clusters and n-gram to enhance automated scoring accuracy. We used the three supervised learning algorithms resulting in 33 automatic scoring models. As a result of automated scoring, we got a good scoring accuracy of 77.59% on average and up to 85.37%. In this process, we found that argumentation cluster patterns could enhance automated scoring performance accuracy. Then, we analyzed argumentation patterns using the model of decision tree and random forest. Our results were consistent with the previous research in which justification in coordination with claim and evidence determines scientific argumentation quality. Our research method suggests a novel approach for analyzing the quality of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to develop collaboration scripts as an instructional means to facilitate argumentation in computer-supported collaborative learning, and to analyze their effects. To develop collaboration scripts for argumentation, researchers used activity theory as a conceptual framework and refined the design principles by design-based research. Using LAMS, collaboration scripts for argumentation were developed based on the ArgueGraph. To examine their effects, 72 participants were divided into two groups by internal scripts and randomly allocated to one of three external scripts. Applying mixed methods, researchers analyzed argumentation competence related to the cognitive aspect, examined self-efficacy related to the motivational aspect, and identified the factors influencing collaborative learning processes and outcomes. Researchers found that the internal script is a critical factor to determine the dimensions, degrees, and duration of improvement in argumentation competence. That is, learners with higher internal scripts improved highly in the quality of single arguments, while learners with lower internal scripts improved continuously in the quality of argumentation sequences. The effects of the external scripts varied with the internal script levels and supporting periods. Besides, collaboration scripts for argumentation had positive effects on learners' self-efficacy, and learners with higher internal scripts had better self-efficacy. The factors influencing collaborative learning processes and outcomes showed different results depending on the learning context. Therefore, when scripting learner's interaction in CSCL, researchers should design the scripts adaptable to a natural context of activities.

• Educational Technology International
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.207-231
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of Critical Thinking Strategy supporting argumentation activities between learners. The research question is whether the form of Critical Thinking Strategy offered to support meaningful interaction of collaborative argumentation between learners influences the knowledge acquisition, learning outcome, and student satisfaction. For this, the collaboration outcome of the group, the level of individual knowledge acquisition, the level of students satisfaction were measured as outcome of argumentation activity and their differences analyzed. This study concludes the following: A comparison of the group that was provided with Critical Thinking Strategy (test group) and the group provided with general argumentation scaffolds (compared group) showed there wasn't statistically significant differences in the quality of the learning outcome of collaboration between the groups and in students satisfaction. But there was significant difference in the degree of individual acquisition depending on the offering of scaffolding for Critical Thinking. Therefore, as premised in this study, supporting meaningful mutual interaction between learners during collaborative argumentation using Critical Thinking Strategy has a positive influence on the individual acquisition of domain knowledge. The group provided with scaffolding for Critical Thinking gained higher effect in the degree of knowledge sharing and individual acquisition of domain knowledge compared to the group provided with general argumentation scaffolding.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.567-586
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study was to investigate the gifted students' view on argumentation and the aspects of the argumentation in problem-solving type experiment. As a result, very lively argumentation was identified but quality enhancement on argumentation wasn't found over time. Students made frequent use of dialogic argumentation component, and especially, request & response component was highly used. Though usage frequency is low, the component of ground & question on ground was shown in 3rd class, and simple agreement gradually reduced, and reinforcing elaboration & metacognitive question has slightly increased. Also, students' argumentation were closely related to teachers' teaching approaches as some teacher-led steps doesn't appear in students' argumentation. By comparison in steps, 'problem solving activity & result analysis' step included 2 times more argument components than the previous step. We also found that method grouping teams does not almost affect the argumentation of gifted students. By survey results, most students recognized that they experienced free argumentation and this program activate argumentation and 'strange things' or 'difficulty' of program topics are obstacles in vitalization of argumentation. 'Surface growth experiments' was the most lively argumentation topic. The argumentation was lively made in the step of 'finding solution. 'Teachers' scaffolding accelerate the argumentation and help resolve difficulties in argumentation. Thus, students have positive recognition for the argumentation process in the experiments and recognize that argumentation process is needed.

• 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 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.

• 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.

• 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.