An Analysis on the Level of Evidence used in Gifted Elementary Students' Debate

초등과학 영재의 논증활동에서 사용된 증거의 수준 분석

  • Published : 2008.08.30

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of evidence used in gifted elementary students' argumentation. The subjects were 15, 5th and 6th grade students selected in the Science Education Institute for Gifted Youth in K University. After the argumentation task was given to students 2 weeks ago, the students grouped themselves in the affirmative and negative and took part in a debate for 2 hours. Their argumentation process was observed, recorded and transcribed for analysis. Transcribed data was given a Protocol Number according to priority and was examined to find out what were the characteristics when students participated in the task. The evidence used in argumentation was graded from level 1 to level 6 according to Perella's Hierarchy of Evidence and the rate of frequency classified by the level was expressed in graph. Students used Level 1- Level 2 evidence above 50% without for or against task. They had weak argumentation making use of low-level evidence such as individual experience, opinion and another person's experience rather than objective evidences. On the other hand, students commented on the lack of opponent's evidence when they could not trust an opponent's evidence. If one team asked the other to present more evidence but could not, they disregarded the question and turned to another topic. And in cases where the opponent team refuted with evidences of high level, the other team just repeated their claim or evaded the rebuttal. The students tended to complete the argument without the same conclusions with some interruptions. The results show that we need an educational programs including scientific argumentation for science-gifted elementary school students.

Keywords

gifted in science;socioscientific issue;argumentation;level of evidence

References

  1. 권치순 (2005). 초등과학 영재교육의 방향과 과제. 초등과학교육, 24(2), 192-201
  2. 장신호 (2004). 과학 대화를 이용하는 수업에서 교사 와 학생이 겪는 어려움 및 대화 능력의 변화발전에 대한 사례 연구. 초등과학교육, 17(1), 79-99
  3. 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, 757-792 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  4. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of Mathematical Meaning. (pp. 229-269). Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum
  5. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  6. Osborne, J. F. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-215 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559
  7. Park, J., & Park, S. (1997). Students' responses to experimental evidence based on perceptions of causality and availability of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 57-67 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<57::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-N
  8. Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. London: Routledge
  9. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press
  10. Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  11. 박수경, 김광휘 (2005). 과학 영재학생의 사고 양식 유형과 학업성취 및 과학 개념과의 관계 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(2), 307-320
  12. 박지영, 이길재, 김성하, 김희백 (2005). 과학영재교육 프로그램 분석 모형의 고안과 국내의 과학영재를 위한 생물프로그램의 실태 분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 33(1), 122-131
  13. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teachers' specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965-986 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20081
  14. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  15. Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 215-228
  16. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  17. Verlinden, J. (2005). Critical thinking and everyday argument. Belmont: Thomson & Wardsworth
  18. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M., K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008
  19. 전국과학영재교육센터협의회(2000). 과학영재의 판 별과 선발. 전국과학영재교육센터협의회
  20. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham. Open University Press
  21. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument patten for Studying Science Discourse. Science Education, 915-933 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  22. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  23. Bandiera, M., & Bruno, C., 2006, Active/cooperative learning in schools. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 130-134 https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2006.9656030
  24. Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham. UK: Open University Press
  25. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  26. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press
  27. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  28. Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483-499 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199805)35:5<483::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-L
  29. Walton, D. (2005). Justification of argumentation schemes. Australian Journal of Logic, -(3), 1-13
  30. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press
  31. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  32. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  33. Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L, & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072764
  34. Perella, J. (1987). The debate method of critical thinking: An introduction to argumentation. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
  35. Sadiler, T. D., Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
  36. Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
  37. 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  38. Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  39. Newton, P., Driver, P., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  40. 강순민, 임재항, 공영태, 남정희, 최병순 (2004). 과학 맥락에서 학생간 논의과정의 발달. 대한화학회지, 48(1), 85-93
  41. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. New Jersey: Ablex
  42. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  43. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  44. Jang, S., & Anderson, C. W. (2004). Prospective elementary science teachers' ways of coping with subject matter knowledge in their teaching practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  45. Walton, D. N. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy, 87, 399-419 https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735