> ac`` Ribjbj2nT...8fT,$(h)NNN)NTN}+.0,@$vXTD^))NNNNd:TAnalyzing Explicit Teaching Strategies and Student Discourse for Scientific Argumentation
YoungShin Park
Oregon State University
Scientific inquiry in K12 classrooms tends to be procedural, lacking opportunities for students to gain understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed through reflection, debate, and argument. Limited opportunity to develop scientific argumentation skills prevents students from practicing the scientific thinking needed to understand the nature of scientific knowledge and the role of scientific inquiry. To solve this problem in science education, recent research has focused on how to support student opportunities to learn scientific argumentation in the context of learning science content.
The purpose of this investigation was to examine and analyze one science teachers understanding of scientific argumentation and his teaching strategies for developing students argumentation skills in the classroom. This investigation also analyzed student discourse in response to those teaching strategies, to see how students demonstrate improved scientific thinking skills while they developed skills in scientific argumentation.
One science teacher, Mr. Field, and his students at the middle school level participated in this study for two months. Three interviews employing semistructured protocols were used to examine Mr. Fields understanding of scientific argumentation. A structured observational protocol enhanced with field notes and audio tape recordings were employed to investigate Mr. Fields teaching strategies that led students to demonstrate scientific thinking skills. Transcriptions of student discourse and two lab reports were also analyzed for the quality of students scientific thinking skills. Three different tools for argument analysis, Toulmin, Epistemic Operation, and Reasoning Complexity, were used to examine student argumentation in detail.
The teacher, Mr. Field, defined scientific inquiry as the combination of developing procedural skills through handson activities and reasoning skills through argumentation. Seven different teaching strategies emerged based on sixty hours of classroom observation. Daily Science and the ClaimEvidence Approach were the two main teaching strategies that gave students opportunities to demonstrate the reasoning skills needed to construct scientific knowledge. However, students developed less extended arguments during Daily Science, whose purpose was to provide them with a chance to practice basic skills, such as differentiating independent variables from dependent. On the other hand, students developed more extended arguments during the ClaimEvidence Approach, where the purpose was to provide students with opportunities to develop claims, to find evidence from experiments to support the claims or refute those of others, and to discuss the limitation of the experiments.
The less extended argumentation observed during these activities is described as a linear flow, moving from Mr. Fields question to students answers to Mr. Fields evaluation at the end. The more extended argumentation can be described as a circular flow, moving from Mr. Fields question, to students answers, to Mr. Fields evaluation with more prompts or questions, to students responses as justification, to Mr. Fields general explanation based on students justification, and finally to the teachers or students synthesis or applications. The former argumentation is named Fundamental Argumentation and the latter Exploring Argumentation. Fundamental Argumentation occurred more often than the other during this study. Shifting from Fundamental Argumentation to Exploring Argumentation was observed to depend on the teachers scaffolding, such as using more extended questions and prompts to further the discussion.
In addition, the students abilities to develop scientific argumentation were related to their scientific knowledge, the teachers engagement in interacting with students, and the opportunities students had to practice scientific argumentation. Limited scientific knowledge is believed to prevent students from demonstrating reasoning skills. Also, wait time that students need to retrieve knowledge, described by Mr. Field, is also believed to be one of the barriers to scientific argumentation in some of Mr. Fields classroom interaction. Further investigation of students abilities to develop scientific argumentation in different contexts, such as group work and whole class discussion, is recommended with the use of the argument analysis tools employed in this study, in order to better understand the nature of learning and teaching scientific argumentation in the classroom.
lX YP! ȩƬ@: Y  0 \ P Y QǄ
l
YP! Y D YյX <\ X . Y D t, Y@ Y t Ż Ƚ ttt Xp, YՐt t t XՔ D t \ ȥX . \ YՐt Y D >D t 4ĳ Yl D XՔ tt, YX YlX @ ɔ\ Yյ©\ Dв .
X̹,  YPX Yl t\ Y t Ż Ƚ ttXՔ p q\ (x )̹ X . , Y, P@X 1 (Reflection)X , Ż Y t Ƚ tt` ǔ X t 䲔 t (Gallagher & Tobin, 1987). \ t\ X 0 䲔 @ Y X 1, YlX `t 4x ttXՔp DՔ\ Y )p( ŵ` 0ĳ 䲔 D ɅtȔ t. tհED >0 t, 0tX l Ż Xt YŌ YlX Y 0 ` ǔ D T.
\X l YD Y X 0Ɣp DՔ\ Y0 P X . tǃ@ YX % 8 D̲, Yt D \` ĳ] 0 XՔ P ǴX 8 t. 0 P Y\ X 0 ǔ 8x P@ Ť t ǔ, \ ȹ (x LD @ X ǔ t ` Ǡ. t l \ x, 8x P <\ ttXՔ 0ր 4t, 4 PD Ĕ pȬt X. t\ Pt YX Qt tǔ (x D(xɔ ` <\ YX Q \ pȬt t t lX X T XՔ t ` Ǡ. l8Ȕ L .
PX Y 0 \ ttĳ 4x?
t\ 0 t t P Š\ PD XՔ?
t P t Y@ Y 0 p, 0X @ Š\?
l)
t l X x l CASE STUDY ȩX. t lX CASE STUDY h@ \ i (0 Pt t) ɔ D $Ɯ ٳH PY 8֑ǩD D t 0X pȬX, l8 \ tD >̔ t. t l)D t P X D X. X P l8 t \ PX 䲑\ PD 0TX, 8 l8 tD X YX T , 0  0tX l X 4 YD tǩX ȹ Yx X 0 XŔ yLȬX.
̸ ̸
\ ĳX YP P, Dܴ(@ X Y, 54 (2Y )t l 8X. t P l ɜ 4D ٳH Yl ń \ t P t ̹DŴp, \ x ٳ̸X XՔ p̔ t tǴ, \\  t Ь.
}\  @ )x (ǌx)LY
9<RtQhth%@
PimĹĹ~lll#h0&h0&6B*CJOJ]ph&h0&h0&6B*CJOJ\]phh0&h0&B*CJOJphh0&h0&CJOJ]h0&h0&6CJOJh0&h0&CJOJh0&h0&B*CJOJphh0&h0&o(h0&5CJaJo(h0&h0&5CJaJh0&h0&5CJaJo(*Z[k
d
dfp
$1$4$7$8$a$gd0&$d[$\$a$gd0&
1$4$7$8$gd0&$`a$gd0&`gd0&$a$gd0&
$da$gd0&Xiim
,0bdfp$VZ\bPðjWI>I>I>I>I>I>h0&CJQJaJo(h}h0&CJQJaJo(%h}h0&5>*CJ KHQJaJ o(*h0&0JB*CJ OJPJQJaJ o(ph333h0&h0&0JB*CJ OJPJQJaJ ph3330h0&h0&0JB*CJ OJPJQJaJ o(ph333%h0&h0&5CJKHQJ\aJo(h0&5CJKHQJ\aJo(h0&h0&CJOJh0&h0&B*CJOJph#h0&h0&6B*CJOJ]php#D#####$&&&&d),1115
"dWD`"gd0&d`gd0&d`gd0&ed^e`gd0&$
&F1$4$7$8$a$gd0&$1$4$7$8$`a$gd0&PJPRrt, 8 < N R X Z z !!!!#####$H$T$$$$$$$$$$%½h0&CJOJQJaJo(h2h0&CJOJQJaJo(h
rh0&5>*CJ aJ o(hE4h0&o( h0&o(heh0&CJQJaJo(h0&CJQJaJh0&CJQJaJo(hpPh0&CJQJaJo(hah0&CJQJaJ6%%%%%x&&&&&&&&&'''@'B'Z'\'j))))**:******
+J+T+,,,,,,,,*FN*.ɶ⡅h@/h0&CJOJQJaJo(h0&CJOJQJaJhl%dh0&CJOJQJaJo( h0&o(%h2h0&5>*CJ OJQJaJ o(h0&5PJo(hah0&CJOJQJaJo(h0&CJOJQJaJo(h2h0&CJOJQJaJo(1*.<.l.n.p.t........../0/R/X////////Z0\0<1>1n1p1z1111111$2&2(22ԶԶԶԶԶԱtthLh0&CJOJQJaJo(h[h0&CJOJQJaJo(%h[h0&5>*CJ OJQJaJ o(hh0&>*o( h0&o(h0&CJOJQJaJ"h@/h0&CJOJQJ]aJo(h0&CJOJQJaJo(h@/h0&CJOJQJaJo(h@/h0&CJOJQJaJ)22233333:4D4N4P4R4V4X4\4^4j4l4x4z4~4444444455555(55555555556HHHHHIѶѶѪh0&CJQJaJo(Uh%h0&CJQJaJo(h%h0&CJQJaJhCHh0&5PJo(h0&CJOJQJaJhLh0&CJOJQJaJh0&CJOJQJaJo(hLh0&CJOJQJaJo("hLh0&6CJOJQJaJo(2 X \ Y\ X p(Data) 0 ȥ (Claim) D `0XՔp X . , Dܴ(X 8 Yt (Data/Claim)X, P (Evaluation)Xt t ] t. \\  @ x <\, PX 8 (Question), YX (Data/Claim), PX (Evaluation)@ T $\ 8 (More questions)tǘ (Prompts), YX D <\ XՔ $ (Warrants as Justification), tǴ PX x $ (Qualifier or Rebuttal as Explanation)<\ t ] t. 0 ȐX @ 0  (Fundamental Argumentation)t t X   (Exploring Argumentation)t t. 0 @ ȴ X 70 % (` ĳ\ ǴŬ̹, X @ JX. \  0 <\ tXՔ @ (Ȉ PX DĬlp (Scaffolding)X ` $. Š\ $\ 8<\ Ť i Y\ X D T U֥` ǔ, t\ t P\ ɔ\ `tX t.
Yt XΔ 0 @ YX 1ĳ@ Ĭ . 2X  4X Y<\ \ , ǌ Yt Ĕ  Ǵ̔ XǌX Y t T ι@ @ D . t xĳ PX DĬlp (Scaffolding)\ x\ 8 ĳ Y\ X T ι@ 0@ D tǔ `D XPRPPPPFQHQtQ~QRR&R(R^S`SSTTV\\\\\]]P]R]T]\]`]˺˫xvxxxxxxUhl?2h0&CJQJaJo(h0&CJQJaJo(hh0&CJQJaJo(h0&5>*CJ aJ o(h[h0&5>*CJ aJ o(h0&CJaJh0&CJaJo(hh0&CJaJh0&B*CJaJo(phh0&B*CJaJphhh0&B*CJaJph*amental Argumentation) x  (Exploring Argumentation)X t . \ Pt T x X t X Š\ xt t\ PX 貰 ƥD Ȕ LD ĳ ֍l t.
K, x P, t l  Y ȥp P @ Yt \ \ D Xt ͬ%D ¤Ќ XՔ <\ <\ ̈́ t 1 . t\ P@ (x PX 0\ \ Yl P Xଐ XՔ PŌ h .
7, 0 ȩ\ OTOP 0ĳl@ SAT (Scientific Argumentation Table: Y \) \ \ ȸt. X x Pi ǴŘ Yl YX @ OTOP 0ĳl\ tǩt X i 0x P YX QD \Ո ` Ǵ x lX \ )<\  . Y x<\ ¨ @ 1D ` i ǴŘ Xଔ t. t g 䲑\ `X 1, TX ` 0 YX @ t М. t\ 䲑\ i И YX D <\ X ǔ t SAT (YɄ\)x t. t\ l@ ^<\X P YX DP\ ǩXՌ  D t.
lX ɔ1
ι@ P@ Yt Y t Ż Ƚ ttXՔ, Yl t Y\ X X 0 Ż XՔ \ P t UD J. ̹} 0X l \ Pi P t Y\ X X 0 X ĳ @ 0 ňt, T` ǔ @ 0X P<\ 8T x P ։ 0 ȩ` ǔ Pt t. t\ 0 \ @ 0X x Pt t tǃ \ D P \ PP! 䲀 ƥt Dв . DP ֬ 0 \ x Y ଥ%D и ǔ D \ <x X Yl D ĳHXՔ t ĳ
DŸt, YP!ǐ@ DPŌ Y D XՔ \ \ Yl iD tL p DՔ\ x D ` ǔ t.
t \, OTOP 0ĳl@ SAT Y \ tǩX D̈́Pt Y 0 X ǔ ` . mYP!hX Yl 0 5 ƌ 4X YX 6 ƌ@ XXp, DP@ ̈́P 0<\ X PP! t\ 0x ɔƌ 0 \Ո Yl X t <\  <\ 1` ǔ 0 Ǵ Xp, t l x 0ĳl@ Tքĳl t D t  й` Ǡ.
pys68@snu.ac.kr
`]b]l]n]r]t]]]]]]]]]^^^^<^P^^^__<_>_D_R___:`>`B`Z`\`d```aLabb(b*b0b8b:ccccceʽرh0&CJOJQJaJo(h);h0&CJOJQJaJo(h[h0&5>*CJ aJ o(h0&5>*CJ aJ o(h%h0&CJQJaJh%h0&CJQJaJo( h0&o(h0&CJQJaJo(hl?2h0&CJQJaJo(h0&CJQJaJ3eeeegg6g@gRiTiViXi~iiiþh0& h0&o(h0&h0&h0&h0&CJQJaJh);h0&CJOJQJaJo(h0&CJOJQJaJo(h0&CJOJQJaJ01h2P. A!"#$%Swlз_!R`R0&\$1$4$7$8$a$ KHOJ_HaJmH nHsH tH(A@(0 } 4BiB\ \4
l4a$k$] L`^``0& ()"$dd1$4$7$8$[$\$a$CJKHOJPJQJ^J0`00&8
8!G$ZC`Z0&8 0"$d1$4$7$8$`a$CJKHOJaJ*W`!*0&u@ MѤ¸5\n!"&!"& "& "& "& "& "& "&
("n',,,Z[kdJKWXw"#%%%L&'[(*
**,8!o8!o8!o8!o8!8!8!8!d8!)8!)8!^&8!8!8!8!8!8!8!8!p8!d8!"8!8!8!8!8!8!8!8!8!8!8!8!^&8!X8!8!8!)8!R48!j8!8!8!8!8!j8!p8!"8!8!8!R48!j8!8!8!OZ[kdJKWXw"#%%%L&'[(*
**,000000000000000000000 0 0 0@0@000000000000000000000000d
**,{00
{000{00
{00@0{0Gy0y00@0
00rmP%*.2I*urn:schemasmicrosoftcom:office:smarttags
PersonName=*urn:schemasmicrosoftcom:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemasmicrosoftcom:office:smarttags PlaceNameV*urn:schemasmicrosoftcom:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ z
"hldghi
"(MQ./> B ""%%%%((b)e),,k%%
**y,
?eke^e`ko(()
p^`phH.
p^`phH.
p ^ `phH.
p
^
`phH.
0p0^0`phH.
p
^
`phH.
PpP^P`phH.
p^`phH.y,
vR* 0&k@..@.. !&'@ .02HJT\UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3&z Arial;i0Batang96i0tGulim q h:F:F&R&R"!%),.:;?]} 2 3 ! 00
0000 =]([\{ 0
00000;[rd 3qHX)?0&2YAnalyzing Explicit Teaching Strategies and Student Discourse for Scientific Argumentationuseruser i Z'`IZ'Oh+'0$0@ P\

\Analyzing Explicit Teaching Strategies and Student Discourse for Scientific ArgumentationuserNormaluser1Microsoft Office Word@^в@6+@ڮ+&՜.+,0Dhp
&userRZAnalyzing Explicit Teaching Strategies and Student Discourse for Scientific Argumentation
!"#$%&'()*+,./012345679:;<=>?ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_bRoot Entry F+dData
81Table@WordDocument2nSummaryInformation(PDocumentSummaryInformation8XCompObjm
FMicrosoft Office Word
MSWordDocWord.Document.89q