• 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.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.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 Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.471-483
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore how students' epistemological framing and positional framing affect the role of wonderment questions related to the activation of conceptual resources and to investigate what contexts affect students' framings during scientific model construction. Four students were selected as focus group and they participated in collaborative scientific model construction of mechanisms relating to urination. According to the results, one student whose framings were "understanding phenomena" and "facilitator" asked wonderment questions, but the others whose framings were "classroom game" and "non-respondent" were not able to activate their conceptual resources. However, they were able to activate their conceptual resources when they shared the epistemological framing of "understanding phenomena" and shifted between the positional framings of "facilitator" and "respondent." Although they were able to activate their conceptual resources, these activated resources were not able to contribute to their model when they shifted to the framings of "classroom game" and "receiver." In contrast, when students constantly shared an "understanding phenomena" framing and dynamically shifted between the framings of "facilitator" and "respondent," they were able to activate various conceptual resources and develop their group model. The students' framings were affected by the contexts. These included: when students were confronted with cognitive difficulties and were not provided proper scaffolding; when the teacher played the role of answer provider and guided the activity with correctness; when there were several possible explanatory models that students could choose from; and when the teacher played the role of thought facilitator. This study contributes to supporting teaching and learning environments for productive scientific model construction.

• 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.

• Architectural research
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.15-23
• /
• 2010

This paper will discuss three different ways of framing relationships between identity and built forms mainly through the theoretical frame works of David Harvey, Christine M. Boyer, Jane M. Jacobs, Doreen Massey, Paul Rabinow, and Michel Foucault. From these scholars, this paper will argue the relationships between identity and built forms are categorized as such: "Becoming", "Politics of Difference", and "Construction of Self". Besides these three approaches of framing identity and built forms, relevant ideas will be drawn from the work of other scholars in so far as their theoretical positions relate and support these three key frameworks. To approach the critical points of each debate, these three categories are further analyzed by juxtaposing the epistemological positions between them. Through the comparisons, this paper illustrates the interrelationships and interdependence of these three categories whose discursive power gains rapid popularity in Western scholarships. By incorporating the three ways to view the relationship between built form and the identity of social groups, drawn is a suggestion for a broader imagining of new spatial identity.