• 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.36 no.6
• /
• pp.895-910
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students' progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students' group norms related to participation were developed, and the students' epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students' group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others' arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.76-86
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study is to investigate the characteristics of scientific argumentation and its development in the process of mutual discussion activities by elementary school students in the 5th grade. The results of this study can be summarized as below: First, students used diversity argumentation components for solving the given argumentation theme, however, most students used the assertion or the basis of a simple expression of their own thoughts as a high ratio, and components of a one directional explanatory argumentation process rather than components of a mutual communicative argumentation process. Second, an asymmetric group showed a high-use ratio of communicative argumentation components and achieved argumentation activities harmoniously between a symmetric group and an asymmetric group in organization of groups for solving argumentation themes. It was found that students in the transitional period showed the highest rate of participation within the discussion process. Moreover, they also showed the highest rate of development of discussion skills whilst in the process of using scientific problems. In conclusion, this phenomenon is caused by highlighting the mutual action between the teacher and the student rather than placing an emphasis on the mutual action among students during field instructions.

• Korean Educational Research Journal
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.109-125
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to examine how group argumentations mediated individual arguments by analyzing physics teachers' group argumentation and individual follow-up written arguments. Five in-service physics teachers participated in this study, two middle school and three high school teachers. The topics of argumentation included physics topics and pedagogy of them. Findings showed that the teachers constructed much more elaborated individual written arguments than group argumentation, which seemed to be resulted from different perceptions of teachers' verbal and written argumentations. Also, in their written arguments the teachers selectively utilized their colleagues' ideas shared during group argumentation. Lastly, teachers' argumentation showed different features between topics of physics and physics pedagogy. These differences were related to their orientations toward argumentation about content knowledge and teaching. These findings shed light on a productive physics teacher professional development in argumentation.

• Korean Medical Education Review
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.101-108
• /
• 2017

When participating in problem-based learning (PBL), it is important for medical students to generate claims and provide justifications for their claims in small group discussions. This study aimed to investigate the effect of argumentation instruction on medical student learning experiences with PBL. A total of one hundred first-year preclinical students from Inje University College of Medicine, who had attended argumentation instruction, participated in this study. All of the participants completed a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire regarding their learning experiences with PBL, before and after the argumentation instruction. The questionnaire comprised 22 items with eight subcategories: argumentation activity, reflection, integration of basic and clinical science, identification of lack of knowledge, logical thinking, self-directed study, communication, and attitude toward discussion. The collected data were analyzed through a paired-sample t-test. The results of this study found that the argumentation instruction promoted the preclinical students' experiences with argumentation activities, reflection, an integration of basic and clinical science, the identification of their lack of knowledge, logical thinking, and self-directed study, and it increased positive attitudes toward group discussion. The findings suggest argumentation instruction can enhance medical student group discussions and help students achieve the objectives of PBL, including acquisition of basic and clinical science knowledge and development of clinical reasoning and self-directed learning abilities, which can highlight the meaningful learning experiences students have with PBL.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.604-624
• /
• 2012

This study aims to design a framework for analyzing group argumentation in terms of participants' interaction. Regarding the current group argumentation setting as argumentation on socio-scientific issues within participants who have had limited experience on group argumentation, the analytical framework was designed to explain (1) what was each participant's role on group argumentation, (2) how these roles were changed within each time of argumentation, and (3) how the patterns of interaction were changed through seven times of a series of argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Based on the literature review on analytical framework of argumentation in science education including the works on the structure of argumentation, the discourse formation through interaction, and the linguistic approach on participants' interaction, the current research framework was built. Showing the results of applying the designed framework on group argumentation as an example, strength of using the current designed framework was discussed.

• 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 Chemical Society
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.85-93
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this research was to investigate the change of argumentation of middle school students when they participated in argument tasks with CASE(Cognitive acceleration through science education) programs. Students argumentations were divided into two categories; 'explanatory argumentation' and 'dialogic argumentation'. Several argumentation components were used in their argumentation. Among argumentation components, claim and ground took place more than half of argumentation components. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was lower than the percentage of 'explanatory argumentation'. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was getting higher during CASE intervention. CASE programs had more effect on symmetric group than asymmetric group, however it was unstable. In general, participation ratio in argumentation of the formal operational student was high and the ratio in argumentation of the transitional student was getting higher.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.195-205
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of scientific argumentation on argument tasks with incorrect alternative ideas in elementary science classes. The subjects were 41 fourth graders of 2 classes in an elementary school. In the experimental group, argument tasks with pictures including incorrect alternative ideas were suggested in order to facilitate argumentation. Students were asked to perform argumentation with the component of claim, evidence, and reasoning. In the control group, textbook-based traditional instruction was used. The results showed that scientific argumentation activities on argument tasks with incorrect alternative ideas had positive effects on students' science achievement and science-related affective domains. The analyses of students' argumentation revealed that argument tasks with incorrect alternative ideas could facilitate students' participation and exposure of their preconceptions. It also led students to find and connect evidence to support their claims. In some cases, students had difficulty in making appropriate argumentation because of unclear experimental data and/or invalid reasoning. Educational implications were discussed.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.79-88
• /
• 2006

study was to explore the patterns and the characteristics of students' interactive argumentation in the middle school science classes. The data were collected by observing and audiotaping the small-group discussions and the transcribed data were analyzed through the lens of Toulmin's argument frame. As the results, the three argumentation patterns, which could be combined different ideas with or without their warrants, were presented. In the first pattern, the argumentation including the claim and its warrant without any different ideas, the students argumentation did not have any conflict with each other in the discussions. In the second, the argumentation of different ideas without their warrants, the different ideas did not affect the claim. In the last, the argumentation of different ideas with their warrants, the students elaborated the claim through collaborative argumentation in search for the warrant. To understand and improve student discussions in the science classrooms, conclusion and implications were discussed based on the results.