DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on the Argumentation Pattern and Level of Students' Mental Models in Modeling-based Learning about Geologic Structures

지질구조에 대한 모델링기반 학습에서 나타나는 논증패턴과 정신모형 수준에 대한 분석

  • Received : 2015.09.30
  • Accepted : 2015.10.26
  • Published : 2015.10.31

Abstract

This study aims to develop a modeling-based learning program about geologic structures and to reveal the relationship between the argumentation patterns and levels of students' mental models. Participants included 126 second grade high school students in four sessions of modeling-based learning regarding continental drift, oceanic ridges, transform faults, and characteristics of faults. A modeling-based learning program was implemented in two classes of the experimental group, and teacher-centered traditional classes were carried out for the other students in the comparison group. Science achievement scores and the distribution of students' mental models in experimental and comparison groups were quantitatively compared. The video-taped transcripts of five teams' argumentation were qualitatively analyzed based on the analytic framework developed in the study. The analytic framework for coding students' argumentation in the modeling-based learning was composed of five components of TAP and the corresponding components containing alternative concepts. The results suggest that the frequencies of causal two-dimensional model and cubic model were high in the experimental group, while the frequencies of simple two-dimensional model and simple cross sectional model were high in the comparison group. The higher the frequency of claims, an argumentation pattern was proven successful, and the level of mental model was higher. After the rebuttal was suggested, students observed the model again and claimed again according to new data. Therefore, the model could be confirmed as having a positive impact on students' argumentation process.

Keywords

modeling-based learning;argumentation pattern;mental model;geologic structures

References

  1. Barnett, M., & Morran, J. (2002). Addressing children's alternative frameworks of the Moon's phases and eclipses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 859-879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095276
  2. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A Learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  3. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation, Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  4. Clark, D.B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  5. Clement, J. J. (2000). Model-based learning as a key research area of science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416901
  6. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
  7. Coll, R., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000276712
  8. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers' conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379-1401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673775
  9. Driver, R. A., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms. 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
  10. Duschl, R.A. (2008). Quality of argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp.159-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
  11. Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J., (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  12. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of science classroom argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
  13. Erduran, S., Ardac, D. & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Promoting argumentation in pre-service teacher education in Science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
  14. Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2005). Developing arguments. In, S. Alsop, L. Bencze., & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice, (pp. 106-115). London, UK: Open University Press.
  15. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  16. Franco, C. & Colinvaux, D. (2000). Grasping mental models. In J. Gilbert and C. Boulter(Eds.), Developing models in science education, (pp. 93-118). New York, NY:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  17. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education, (pp.3-17). New York, NY:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  18. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200106
  19. Gilbert, S. W., & Ireton, S. W. (2003). Understanding models in earth and space science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  20. Gobert, J. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on model-building in plate tectonics: Diagramming versus explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 444-455. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.444
  21. Gobert, J. D. & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-I
  22. Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289976
  23. Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7), 665-697.
  24. Han, H., Lee, T., Ko, H., Lee, S., Kim, E., Choe, S., & Kim, C. (2012). An analysis of the type of rebuttal in argumentation among science-gifted student. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 717-728. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.717
  25. Hogan, K., & Maglenti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinning of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 668-687.
  26. Jang, E., Ko, W., & Kang, S. (2012). The analysis of university student's modeling patterns and perceptions through modeling experiments. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(1), 1-14 https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.1.001
  27. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodrigues, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  28. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  29. Kang, S., Kwak, K., & Nam, J. (2006). The effects of argumentation-based teaching and learning strategy on cognitive development, science concept understanding, science-related attitude, and argumentation in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(3), 450-461.
  30. Kang, N., & Lee, E. (2013). Argument and argumentation: A Review ofliterature for clarification of translated words. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(6), 1119-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119
  31. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
  32. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
  33. Lee, H., Cho, H., & Son, J. (2009). The teachers' view on using argumentation in school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(6), 666-679.
  34. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy: Supporting developmentin learning in context. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, (pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  35. Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S., Dahl, J., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students' ideas about the earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.17
  36. Maeng, S., Park, Y., & Kim, C. (2013). Methodological review of the research on argumentative discourse focused on analyzing collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 733-744.
  37. Oh, P., & Oh, S. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191
  38. Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  39. Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(1), 63-70.
  40. Park, S. (2009). An analysis of high school students' mental models on the plate boundaries. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 30(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2009.30.1.111
  41. Park, S. (2011). An analysis of the mental models of middle school students with different learning style on plate tectonics. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 733-744.
  42. Park, S. (2013). The relationship between students' perception of the scientific models and their alternative conceptions of the lunar phases. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(3), 285-298. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.936a
  43. Park, S., & Oh, J. (2013). Learners' ontological categories according to their mental models of plate boundaries. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(2), 17-34.
  44. Romberg, T., Carpenter, T., & Kwako, J. (2005). Standards based reform and teaching for understanding. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters, (pp.3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  45. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  46. Samarapungavan, A., Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1996). Mental models of the Earth, Sun, and Moon: Indian children's cosmologies. Cognitive Development, 11(5), 491-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90015-5
  47. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  48. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  49. Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720-744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20324
  50. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Keynon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Schwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  51. Shin, H., & Kim, H. (2011). Students' view on argumentation and the aspects of the argumentation in problem-solving type experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(4), 567-586.
  52. Shin, H., & Kim, H. (2012). Development of the analytic framework for dialogic argumentation using the TAP and a diagram in the context of learning the circular motion. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 1007-1026. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.1007
  53. 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), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  54. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research; State of the art and future direction. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, and M. Carretero(Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change, (pp. 3-13). New York, NY:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  56. Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  57. Watson, J., Swain, J. R., & Mcrobbie, C. (2004). Students'discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072764
  58. Yore, L.D., & Treagust, D.F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336973
  59. 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.
  60. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008