DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploring Secondary Students' Progression in Group Norms and Argumentation Competency through Collaborative Reflection about Small Group Argumentation

소집단 논변활동에 대한 협력적 성찰을 통한 중학생들의 소집단 규범과 논변활동 능력 발달 탐색

  • Received : 2016.11.24
  • Accepted : 2016.12.07
  • Published : 2016.12.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students' progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students' group norms related to participation were developed, and the students' epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students' group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others' arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

Keywords

argumentation;collaborative reflection;group norms;group argumentation competency

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국연구재단

References

  1. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Small group discussions in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
  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., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
  4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  5. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.
  6. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385
  7. Choi, J., Lee, S., & Kim, H. B. (2014). Social interaction according to students' approaches to learning science and Their Levels of Scientific Knowledge during Small-Group Argumentation. Biology Education, 42(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.4.371
  8. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  9. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 1-35.
  10. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific 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
  12. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  13. Eldon, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participative action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  14. 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
  15. Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 14(3), 205-227. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014003205
  16. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
  17. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and Education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. New York: Routledge.
  18. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "Doing science": Arguments 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
  19. Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
  20. 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
  21. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
  22. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
  23. Lee, S., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring the impact of students' learning approach on collaborative group modeling of blood circulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 234-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9509-5
  24. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512 - 529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.001
  25. Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 693-720.
  26. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  27. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  28. NGSS Lead States(2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  29. Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008) Interactive patterns and conceptual change during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20211
  30. 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
  31. Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 643-658. https://doi.org/10.1086/461745
  32. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  33. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
  34. 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
  35. Sandoval, W. A., & Cam, A. (2011). Elementary children's judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20426
  36. 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
  37. Strause, A., & Corbin, J. (1988). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  38. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: Perspectives from the field. Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  39. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Use of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universit Press.
  40. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
  41. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
  42. 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