• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.569-580
• /
• 2013

This study examined how a Structured Reading Framework (SRF) is related to improving students' critical thinking ability in an argument-based inquiry approach, called the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. A total of 75 $8^{th}$ graders participated in the study, with 34 in the control group and 41 in the treatment group. The gains in critical thinking skills were compared between two groups, and relationships among the components of the reading framework and the critical thinking skills were explored at the group level. Result indicates that the treatment group who used the SRF had larger gains in critical thinking scores than control group who used the Original Reading Framework (ORF). In addition, results show that the correlations between Reading Framework (RF) components and critical thinking scores are statistically significant in the treatment group, while no correlations exist in the control group. It appears that using the SRF have an impact on developing students' critical thinking ability by providing a scaffold to assist argumentation practice.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.193-202
• /
• 2021

This study aims to identify what kind of epistemological resources were activated in unproductive and productive practice by students participating in scientific argumentation, and to explore which contexts result in changes in argumentative practice. We collected transcriptions of participants' argumentative lessons and interview, participants' work sheets, and researchers' field notes. The analysis revealed that the focus group activated different kinds of epistemological resources depending on their practice; propagated, belief, and accumulation in unproductive practice and constructed, understanding, accumulation, formation and rebuttal in productive practice. We found two contextual cues that led to these changes; unfamiliar form of argumentative task was provided and emotional, epistemic, and conceptual support of the epistemic authority. This work can be provided as additional case studies to analyze changes in practice according to learner context-dependent epistemology, and we expect to contribute to discussions of productive epistemology and stabilization for students' authentic science engagement.

• 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 Science Education
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.12-26
• /
• 2018

This study examined the effects of SSI argumentation program on the preservice biology teachers' decision-making types and communication ability. The SSI argumentation program was developed based on 'Social Decision-Making & Problem-Solving strategy' and Toulmin's argumentation pattern. The preservice teachers had opportunities of SSI argumentation through small group discussions. They were asked to identify the issues regarding SSI, think of solutions, and make a decision along with claims, warrants, data, and rebuttals. The preservice biology teachers experienced four SSI topics of abortion, euthanasia, gene manipulation, artificial intelligence. The results indicated that the preservice biology teachers significantly improved the communication ability after the intervention, but they did not change their types of decision-making. In addition, after the intervention, the Pearson correlation results indicated that 'the logical type' of decision-making significantly relates to the communication ability(p<.01). The preservice biology teachers mentioned that they improved their ability of considering warrants, data, background information, context, and rebuttals. Further, the preserivce biology teachers mentioned that they became take an interest in socioscientific issues and improved their ability of accepting criticism from others as well as caring about others when they argue each other. This study implicated that the SSI argumentation program has effects on improving personality education in school science.

• 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.4
• /
• pp.691-707
• /
• 2015

This study aims to develop biology teachers' education program based on argumentation activity about core concepts of evolution and to analyze the characteristics of core concepts of evolution learned during the program. The eight core concepts of evolution in this study were variation, heritability of variation, competition, natural selection, adaptation, differential reproductive rate of individuals, changes in genetic pool within a population, and macroevolution. The performances of teachers participating in the program were compared before and after argumentation activities; consisting of seven sessions on the eight core concepts of evolution. The process of the program was specially designed by learning cycle model for teacher education, consisting of seven phases: identification of the task, production of a tentative argument, small group's written argument, share arguments with the other groups, reflective discussion, final written argument, and organization by an instructor. Participants in the study were two pre-service biology teachers and four in-service biology teachers. The results suggest that biology teachers reduced the teleological explanation for biological evolution and improve its adequacy after the intervention. Teachers lacked the opportunity to discuss variation, heritability of variation, competition, and macroevolution because science textbooks lack information on the concepts of biological evolution. The results of this study suggest that because the argumentation program developed for teachers helps to improve understanding the concepts of evolution and to reduce inadequate conceptions in biology, teacher education programs using argumentation activity and eight core concepts of evolution will play a role for efficient evolution education for biology teachers.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.565-575
• /
• 2017

This study analyzes the epistemic considerations and the argumentation level revealed in the discourse of the key concept of natural selection for science-gifted elementary students. The paper analyzes and discusses the results of a three-student focus group, drawn from a cohort of twenty gifted sixth-grade elementary students. Nature, generality, justification, and audience were used to analyze epistemic consideration. Learning progression in scientific argumentation including argument construction and critique was used to analyze students' scientific argumentation level. The findings are as follows: First, Epistemic considerations in discourse varied between key concepts of natural selection discussed. The nature aspect of epistemic considerations is highly expressed in the discourse for all natural selection key concepts. But the level of generality, justification and audience was high or low, and the level was not revealed in the discourse. In the heredity of variation, which is highly expressed in terms of generality of knowledge, the linkage with various phenomena against the acquired character generated a variety of ideas. These ideas were used to facilitate engagement in argumentation, so that all three students showed the level of argumentation of suggestions of counter-critique. Second, students tried to explain the process of speciation by using concepts that were high in practical epistemic considerations level when explaining the concept of speciation, which is the final natural selection key concept. Conversely, the concept of low level of epistemic considerations was not included as an explanation factor. The results of this study suggest that students need to analyze specific factors to understand why epistemological decisions are made by students and how epistemological resources are used according to context through various epistemological resources. Analysis of various factors influencing epistemological decisions can be a mediator of the instructor who can improve the quality and level of the argumentation.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2019

This study aims to explore students' epistemic practices and considerations, which are explained as underlying epistemic thoughts that guide their epistemic practices, during argumentation in science classrooms. We also investigated how collaborative reflection facilitated the development of such epistemic considerations. Two seventh-grade classes participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities and collaborative reflection after classes. A group with students' change in epistemic aspects and the influence of collaborative reflection clearly revealed from their practices was chosen as a focus group. We recorded their class discussions and collaborative reflections with the researchers. Transcriptions of the recordings and checklists we collected during the collaborative reflections were used for analysis. Results showed evident changes in the students' epistemic considerations and practices and four factors facilitating such developments were identified. First, the researcher facilitating the students to recognize each other as collaborators during collaborative reflection led development of epistemic considerations on "audience using the knowledge products." Second, the collaborative reflection facilitated construction of context for peer interactions where the students encouraged each other to participate in the discussion, resulting in the development of other students' epistemic considerations on "justifications in knowledge products." Third, the items provided on the checklists explicitly delineated expectations on their practices in argumentation, also facilitating development of epistemic considerations. Lastly, the students' imitation of the researcher's pattern of discourse facilitated construction of causal explanation and development of epistemic considerations on "nature of the knowledge products." This study will contribute to the construction of strategies that develop students' epistemic considerations and productive epistemic practices in argumentation.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.64 no.5
• /
• pp.291-303
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to explore the patterns of college students' dialogic argumentation in the context of nanotechnology issues, and to compare these patterns based on their idiocentrism and allocentrism. Nanotechnology represents the characteristics of socioscientific issues in that it is widely used in various fields, but at the same time, it includes the likelihood of negative effects. 33 college students who enrolled in science-related course participated in this study. Participants were divided into idiocentric groups and allocentric groups based on the INDCOL scores, and they participated in group discussions on nanotechnology. All discussions were audiotaped and analyzed using the framework of discourse clusters and schemes. Results showed that participating students engaged in dialogic argumentation with the process of exchanging of individual perspectives, exploration of different perspectives, and coordination and negotiation; specifically, they spent most of their time in exploring different values and perspectives regarding nanotechnology. Results also indicated the differences in discourse clusters and discourse schemes between idiocentric and allocentric groups. Allocentric groups more often negotiated to settle on a group decision than idiocentric groups did, and discourse schemes in their negotiation process were slightly different from the ones in idiocentric groups.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.486-500
• /
• 2013

This study is conducted to examine how epistemic reasoning and argument structures of students vary according to data sources used in the process of argumentation implemented in the context of inquiry. To this end, three argument tasks using first-hand data and three argument tasks using second-hand data were developed and applied to the unit on 'Nutrition of Plants' for first year middle school students. According to the results of this study, epistemic reasoning of students manifested during the process of argumentation and varied according to data sources. While most students composed explanations with phenomenon-based or relation-based reasoning in argumentation using first-hand data, all the small groups composed explanations that included model-based reasoning in argumentation using second-hand data. In the case of arguments including phenomenon-based or relation-based reasoning, students described only observable characteristics, with warrants omitted from arguments in many cases. On the other hand, in the case of arguments that included model-based reasoning, explanations were composed by combining the results of observations with theoretical knowledge, with warrants more apparent in their arguments.