JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Exploring Small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment: Focusing on Students` Epistemic Goals and Epistemic Considerations for Activities
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Exploring Small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment: Focusing on Students` Epistemic Goals and Epistemic Considerations for Activities
Kwon, Ji-suk; Kim, Heui-Baik;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore students` epistemic goals and considerations in designing an experiment task and to investigate how a shift in the students` epistemology affected their argumentation. Four 7th grade students were selected as a focus group. According to the results, when they designed their own experiment, their epistemic goal was `scientific sense-making` and their epistemic considerations - the perception of the nature of the knowledge product was `this experiment should explain how something happened`, the perception of the justification was `we need to use our interpretation of the data` and the perception of the audience was `constructor` - contributed to designing their experiment actively. When students tried to select one argument, their epistemic goal shifted to `winning a debate`, showing `my experiment is better than the others` with the perception of the audience, `competitor`. Consequently, students only deprecated the limits of different experiment so that they did not explore the meaning of each experiment design deeply. Eventually, student A`s experiment design was selected due to time restrictions. When they elaborated upon their result, their epistemic goal shifted to `scientific sensemaking`, reviewing `how this experiment design is scientifically valid` through scientific justification - we need justification to make members accept it - acting as `cooperator`. Consequently, all members engaged in a productive argumentation that led to the development of the group result. This study lays the foundation for future work on understanding students` epistemic goals and considerations to prompt productive argumentation in science classrooms.
 Keywords
epistemic goals;epistemic considerations;epistemic practice;small group argumentation;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436. crossref(new window)

2.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of science apprenticeship program on high school students'understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509. crossref(new window)

3.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts:Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. crossref(new window)

4.
Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882. crossref(new window)

5.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. crossref(new window)

6.
Berland, L. K, & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. crossref(new window)

7.
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2015). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21257 crossref(new window)

8.
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020108. crossref(new window)

9.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of research in science teaching, 37(2), 109-138. crossref(new window)

11.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549. crossref(new window)

12.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. crossref(new window)

13.
Cho, H., Chang, J., & Kim, H. (2013). Epistemic level in middle school students' small-group argumentation using first-hand or second-hand data. Journal of the Korean Association Research in Science Education, 33(2), 486-500. crossref(new window)

14.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. crossref(new window)

15.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291. crossref(new window)

16.
Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogan, E., &Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

17.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. crossref(new window)

18.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

19.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding Student Learning, London: Croom Helms: NY: Nichols Publishing Co.

20.
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417-446. crossref(new window)

21.
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of research in education, 1-32.

22.
Garcia-Mila, M. E. R. C. E., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523. crossref(new window)

23.
Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. K. (2013). The effect of task instructions on students' use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2857-2878. crossref(new window)

24.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

25.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 169-190). Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

26.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, (pp. 89-120). Information Age Publishing.

27.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

28.
Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855-882. crossref(new window)

29.
Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.

30.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. crossref(new window)

31.
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

32.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915. crossref(new window)

33.
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association Research in Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234

34.
Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). peer argumentation in the school science laboratory exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527-2558. crossref(new window)

35.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. In annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

36.
Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuss, S., Glaser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P., & von Rhoneck, C. (2003). An investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 489-507. crossref(new window)

37.
Lee, S., Bak, D., & Nam, J. (2015). Impact of Peer Assessment Activities on High School Student's Argumentation in Argument-Based Inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 353-361. crossref(new window)

38.
Lee, E., Yun, S., & Kim, H., (2015). Exploring small group argumentation and epistemological framing of gifted science students as revealed by analysis of their responses to anomalous data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 419-429. crossref(new window)

39.
Lee, J. (2011). Middle school students' construction of inquiry question in small group project-based scientific inquiry. Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.

40.
Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360. crossref(new window)

41.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. Handbook of educational psychology, 2, 511-544.

42.
Maloney, D, P.(1994). Research on problem solving: Physics In Gabel, D, L. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

43.
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaborationand argumentation, International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841. crossref(new window)

44.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanation through generic versus context-specific written scaffolds. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California.

45.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. Thinking with data, 233-265.

46.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

47.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development[MEHRD]. (2007). A guide for science curriculum. Seoul; Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development

48.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.

49.
National Research Council (Ed.). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. National Academy Press.

50.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross cutting concepts and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

51.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. crossref(new window)

52.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. crossref(new window)

53.
Park, S-H., Lee S., Kim, H-B. (2014). Exploring middle school students' metacognitive development via collaborative reflection of small-group argumentation in science classroom. Biology Education, 42(1), 1-15. crossref(new window)

54.
Pickering, A. (1992). From science as knowledge to science as practice. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 1-26). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

55.
Sadler, T. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346. crossref(new window)

56.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. crossref(new window)

57.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. crossref(new window)

58.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. crossref(new window)

59.
Sandoval, W., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392. crossref(new window)

60.
Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227-260). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

61.
Schwarz, B., B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256. crossref(new window)

62.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 3(5), 443-466.

63.
Shim, S-Y. (2015). Shift in epistemological framing of small group students during their social construction of scientific models. Master thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul.

64.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

65.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. crossref(new window)

66.
Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: argument driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561-596. crossref(new window)

67.
Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

68.
Yun, S., & Kim, H., (2011). Development and Application of the Scientific Inquiry Tasks for Small Group Argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 694-708.

69.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. crossref(new window)