JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Effect of the Argumentation Lessons according to Interaction on High School Students` Academic Achievement
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Effect of the Argumentation Lessons according to Interaction on High School Students` Academic Achievement
Kim, Bumjoon; Kim, Hyoungbum; Cho, Jeungeun; Bae, Sunghee;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study aims to find out the argument structure which appears in the type of argument class (teacher- and student-centered) of the high school. The argument structure was compared and analyzed according to analyzing the study achievement and verified the academic achievement related to climate change. The results are listed below. First, the student-centered class is more effective method through the result that analyzed the class type of the teacher in argument-centered class. This result is to suggest more effective method to revitalize the argument activity of students-centered class which students plan for themselves and find more various materials. Second, teacher-centered class is more effective in contrast with argument analysis in the academic achievement test. While this is why the teacher-centered class utilizes an essential data necessary to curriculum in the argumentation, the elements to form the argument increased because students utilized the materials with their interest and concern in the process of proving in the student-centered class. Through the results of the research, it is necessary to develop the argument-centered programs for the science class and the curriculum-centered materials for argument class activity.
 Keywords
academic achievement;high school;instruction strategy;science knowledge;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Abell, S., Anderson, G., Chezem, J.(2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. in J. Minstrell & E. H. van zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100-199), Washington, Dc: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

2.
Aufschnaiter, C. V., Erduran, S., Osborne., J., Simon, S.(2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how student's argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. crossref(new window)

3.
Chin, C., Osborne, J.(2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discusstions in science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908. crossref(new window)

4.
Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J.(2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms, Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. crossref(new window)

5.
Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, E., Erduran, S.(1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school science students, Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

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

7.
Jonassen, D. H.(1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes, Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 69-69.

8.
Landis, J. R., Koch, G. G.(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. crossref(new window)

9.
Lee, Gyoung-Rok(2008). Analysis of argumentation factors in the scientific inquiry activities of the 11th grade students, Korea National University Graduate School of Education, Master's thesis.

10.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W.(2006). Supporting students' construction of scienctific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials, The journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. crossref(new window)

11.
National Research Council(2012). A framework for K-12 science education, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

12.
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)

13.
Osborne, J. Erduran, S., Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation is school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. crossref(new window)

14.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., Osborne, J.(2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education, 28(2&3), 235-260. crossref(new window)

15.
Song, Mi-Sun(2009). Analysis on the level of gifted elementary school students' argument, Korea National University Graduate School of Education, Master's thesis

16.
Sung, Taeje(1989). Athletics rational discussion on methods and problems of practical exam, Journal of Education Evaluation, 3(2), 126-130.

17.
Toulmin, S. E.(2003). The uses of argument (pp. 87-134), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, (Original work published 1958).

18.
Wolf, F. M.(1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.