首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 26 毫秒
1.
This study investigated the potential of students' written and oral questions both as an epistemic probe and heuristic for initiating collaborative argumentation in science. Four classes of students, aged 12–14 years from two countries, were asked to discuss which of two graphs best represented the change in temperature as ice was heated to steam. The discussion was initiated by asking questions about the phenomenon. Working in groups (with members who had differing viewpoints) and guided by a set of question prompts, an argument sheet, and an argument diagram, students discussed contrasting arguments. One group of students from each class was audiotaped. The number of questions written, the concepts addressed, and the quality of written arguments were then scored. A positive correlation between these factors was found. Discourse analysis showed that the initial focus on questions prompted students to articulate their puzzlement; make explicit their claims and (mis)conceptions; identify and relate relevant key concepts; construct explanations; and consider alternative propositions when their ideas were challenged. Productive argumentation was characterized by students' questions which focused on key ideas of inquiry, a variety of scientific concepts, and which made explicit reference to the structural components of an argument. These findings suggest that supporting students in productive discourse is aided by scaffolding student questioning, teaching the criteria for a good argument, and providing a structure that helps them to organize and verbalize their arguments. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47:883–908, 2010  相似文献   

2.
The literature provides confounding information with regard to questions about whether students in high school can engage in meaningful argumentation about socio‐scientific issues and whether this process improves their conceptual understanding of science. The purpose of this research was to explore the impact of classroom‐based argumentation on high school students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of genetics. The research was conducted as a case study in one school with an embedded quasi‐experimental design with two Grade 10 classes (n = 46) forming the argumentation group and two Grade 10 classes (n = 46) forming the comparison group. The teacher of the argumentation group participated in professional learning and explicitly taught argumentation skills to the students in his classes during one, 50‐minute lesson and involved them in whole‐class argumentation about socio‐scientific issues in a further two lessons. Data were generated through a detailed, written pre‐ and post‐instruction student survey. The findings showed that the argumentation group, but not the comparison group, improved significantly in the complexity and quality of their arguments and gave more explanations showing rational informal reasoning. Both groups improved significantly in their genetics understanding, but the improvement of the argumentation group was significantly better than the comparison group. The importance of the findings are that after only a short intervention of three lessons, improvements in the structure and complexity of students' arguments, the degree of rational informal reasoning, and students' conceptual understanding of science can occur. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 952–977, 2010  相似文献   

3.
  相似文献   

4.
This paper compares the impact of a role-play and a conventional discussion on students' argumentation on an issue involving animal transgenesis. Students were confronted with an imaginable but fictional situation. They had to decide whether or not to approve a giant transgenic salmon farm being set up in a seaside village. Students received the same teaching and information, the only differences being in the debate situation. Students were asked to reach a decision on well-argued grounds, to identify areas of uncertainty and to define the condition or conditions under which a change of view might be considered. They had to write them down. Pre-post-tests were used to assess the students' opinions. The role-play and discussion were all video- and audio-taped and transcribed in full. The analysis focuses on the argumentative structure of the students' discourse and identifies the reference areas that students draw on to deliver their arguments. The theory of economics of 'greatness' or 'importance', which has recently emerged as a framework for the sociology of justification, has also been used in analysing students' discourse.  相似文献   

5.
For students to meaningfully engage in science practices, substantive changes need to occur to deeply entrenched instructional approaches, particularly those related to classroom discourse. Because teachers are critical in establishing how students are permitted to interact in the classroom, it is imperative to examine their role in fostering learning environments in which students carry out science practices. This study explores how teachers describe, or frame, expectations for classroom discussions pertaining to the science practice of argumentation. Specifically, we use the theoretical lens of a participation framework to examine how teachers emphasize particular actions and goals for their students' argumentation. Multiple-case study methodology was used to explore the relationship between two middle school teachers' framing for argumentation, and their students' engagement in an argumentation discussion. Findings revealed that, through talk moves and physical actions, both teachers emphasized the importance of students driving the argumentation and interacting with peers, resulting in students engaging in various types of dialogic interactions. However, variation in the two teachers' language highlighted different purposes for students to do so. One teacher explained that through these interactions, students could learn from peers, which could result in each individual student revising their original argument. The other teacher articulated that by working with peers and sharing ideas, classroom members would develop a communal understanding. These distinct goals aligned with different patterns in students' argumentation discussion, particularly in relation to students building on each other's ideas, which occurred more frequently in the classroom focused on communal understanding. The findings suggest the need to continue supporting teachers in developing and using rich instructional strategies to help students with dialogic interactions related to argumentation. This work also sheds light on the importance of how teachers frame the goals for student engagement in this science practice.  相似文献   

6.
Abstract

The authors investigated the influence of engaging in a problem-based learning unit on middle school students' epistemic beliefs, and how such students' epistemic beliefs and approaches to argumentation within and outside of their small groups related. Data sources include state science achievement test scores, epistemic beliefs pre- and posttests, videotaped class sessions, retrospective interviews, and pre- and post-cognitive interviews. Quantitative data were collected and analyzed from 59 students, while the qualitative subsample consisted of 15 students. Engaging in problem-based learning led to a significant effect on students' epistemic beliefs. The effect was of a large magnitude among high-achieving students, of a small magnitude among average-achieving students, and of a small negative magnitude among lower-achieving students. Students employed different approaches to generating and evaluating arguments in different ecosystems, including as small groups and in discussions with the teacher.  相似文献   

7.
  相似文献   

8.
In this study we investigated junior high school students' processes of argumentation and cognitive development in science and socioscientific lessons. Detailed studies of the relationship between argumentation and the development of scientific knowledge are rare. Using video and audio documents of small group and classroom discussions, the quality and frequency of students' argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on the work of Toulmin ( 1958 ). In parallel, students' development and use of scientific knowledge was also investigated, drawing on a schema for determining the content and level of abstraction of students' meaning‐making. These two complementary analyses enabled an exploration of their impact on each other. The microanalysis of student discourse showed that: (a) when engaging in argumentation students draw on their prior experiences and knowledge; (b) such activity enables students to consolidate their existing knowledge and elaborate their science understanding at relatively high levels of abstraction. The results also suggest that students can acquire a higher quality of argumentation that consists of well‐grounded knowledge with a relatively low level of abstraction. The findings further suggest that the main indicator of whether or not a high quality of argument is likely to be attained is students' familiarity and understanding of the content of the task. The major implication of this work for developing argumentation in the classroom is the need to consider the nature and extent of students' content‐specific experiences and knowledge prior to asking them to engage in argumentation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 101–131, 2008  相似文献   

9.
Research and practice has placed an increasing emphasis on aligning classroom practices with scientific practices such as scientific argumentation. In this paper, I explore 1 challenge associated with this goal by examining how existing classroom practices influence students' engagement in the practice of scientific argumentation. To do so, I present discourse data from 2 middle school classes engaged in argumentation activities. For each class, I compare existing classroom practices to a discussion designed to facilitate argumentation. My analysis reveals that the existing classroom practices influenced the way in which students responded to the disparate ideas being discussed and that the immediate learning environment influenced the frequency with which students justified their ideas and directly responded to one another. This study suggests that the goal structures that aligned with the existing classroom practices carried over to students' argumentative interactions, influencing how they responded to the disparate ideas. However, the immediate learning environment—including activity structure, software tools, and teaching strategies—seemed to foster student-to-student interactions and justification of ideas.  相似文献   

10.
  相似文献   

11.
This study examined the outcomes of a unit that integrates explicit teaching of general reasoning patterns into the teaching of a specific science content. Specifically, this article examined the teaching of argumentation skills in the context of dilemmas in human genetics. Before instruction only a minority (16.2%) of the students referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments in the context of dilemmas in genetics. Approximately 90% of the students were successful in formulating simple arguments. An assessment that took place following instruction supported the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation into the teaching of dilemmas in human genetics enhances performance in both biological knowledge and argumentation. An increase was found in the frequency of students who referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments. Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in a test of genetics knowledge. An increase was also found in the quality of students' argumentation. Students were able to transfer the reasoning abilities taught in the context of genetics to the context of dilemmas taken from everyday life. The effects of metacognitive thinking and of changing students' thinking dispositions by modifying what is considered valuable in the class culture are discussed. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 35–62, 2002  相似文献   

12.
We explored the scientific argumentation that occurs among university biology students during an argumentation task implemented in two environments: face-to-face in a classroom and online in an asynchronous discussion. We observed 10 student groups, each composed of three students. Our analysis focused on how students respond to their peers’ unscientific arguments, which we define as assertions, hypotheses, propositions, or explanations that are inaccurate or incomplete from a scientific perspective. Unscientific arguments provide opportunities for productive dissent, scientific argumentation, and conceptual development of scientifically desirable conceptions. We found that students did not respond to the majority of unscientific arguments in both environments. Challenges to unscientific arguments were expressed as a question or through explanation, although the latter was more common online than face-to-face. Students demonstrated significantly more epistemic distancing in the face-to-face environment than the online environment. We discuss the differences in discourse observed in both environments and teaching implications. We also provide direction for future research seeking to address the challenges of engaging students in productive scientific argumentation in both face-to-face and online environments.  相似文献   

13.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of open inquiry instruction with low achieving, marginalized high school students. Students with long histories of scholastic failure were asked to participate in question generation, experimental design, and argument construction as a part of their General Science course instruction. Videotapes were collected from daily science instruction, and entrance and exit instruction interviews were conducted using identical open‐ended problems. From this dataset, comparisons were made between students' entrance and exit interview responses representing change over time. Shifts in student responses coincided with renegotiated classroom norms for scientific discourse. Results are reported for five students in the form of assertions. Students' arguments were observed to shift toward those more consistent with the nature of the scientific arguments including: (1) students' tentativeness of knowledge claims, (2) students' use of evidence, and (3) students' views regarding the source of scientific authority. Implications are discussed for research and practice in light of the national standards' call for universal scientific literacy. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 37: 807–838, 2000  相似文献   

14.
Since the late 1990s, there has been consensus among educational researchers that argumentation should play a central role in science education. Although there has been extensive relevant research, it is not clear enough how oral argumentation spontaneously occurs in science teaching. This is particularly important with regard to the empirical evidence suggesting the effect of discussion of contradictory views on scientific learning. In order to contribute to the research on argumentation in science teaching, we conducted a study that aims to sketch a panoramic view of the uses of oral argumentation in Chilean middle-school science teaching. A total of 153 videotaped science lessons were observed, involving students aged 10–11 and 12–13. Whole-class argumentative discourse was analysed as a function of thematic episodes and teachers' and students' utterances. Results suggest that argumentative discourse in which contradictory points of view are discussed is scarce but when it occurs it does so predominantly within discourse among students. On the contrary, argumentation aimed at justifying points of view is widely used, even more so when students are older.  相似文献   

15.
In this study, the aim was to examine how small-group collaboration is shaped by individuals interacting in a virtual multiplayer game. The data were collected from a design experiment in which six randomly divided groups of four university students played a voice-enhanced game lasting about 1 h. The ‘eScape’ game was a social action adventure developed as a part of the study. In the analysis of the video data, students' discourse functions during the game were analysed with content analytic methods for studying the nature of their interaction. An effort was made to analyse the data on both group and individual levels, and therefore the participants' prior social ties and experience in gaming were studied as well. The results showed that the students' main discourse functions in their conversation were Question, Content Statement, Instruction or Order and Response. It was found that individual students, especially those with prior knowledge of gaming or prior social ties, can have a major impact on the social interaction and the outcome of collaboration. It can be concluded that the eScape game allowed the students to engage in true and constructive collaborative activity, and in the future multiplayer games could be used, for example, to promote group cohesion and development, when employed in a pedagogically meaningful manner.  相似文献   

16.
This paper argues the possible simultaneous development and transfer of students' argumentation skills from one socio-scientific issue to another in a Confucian classroom. In Malaysia, the Chinese vernacular schools follow a strict Confucian philosophy in the teaching and learning process. The teacher talks and the students listen. This case study explored the transfer of argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in such a Form 2 (8th grade) classroom. An instructional support to complement the syllabus was utilised. The teaching approach in the instructional support was more constructivist in nature and designed to introduce argumentation skills which is uncommon in a Confucian classroom. The two socio-scientific issues were genetically modified foods and deforestation. This paper presents a part of the bigger case study that was conducted. Data collected from written arguments were analysed using an analytical framework built upon Toulmin's ideas. The whole class analysis indicated progression in students' argumentation skills in their ability to give more valid grounds and rebuttals during the transfer. The individual analysis suggests progression in the majority of students' performance, while several students demonstrated non-progression when they faced a different socio-scientific issue.  相似文献   

17.
The scientific competencies advocated by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) focus on the abilities needed in students' adult lives. This study investigated how such scientific competencies could be improved by using online argumentation. One hundred and thirty-eight 8th grade high school students took part in the study, with 69 in the experimental group and 69 in the control group. A quasi-experimental design was adopted and qualitative and quantitative analyses were used. An online argumentation system served as an aid for argumentation instruction and activities among experimental group students during the experiment. The results showed that using online argumentation could improve the students' scores for the PISA scientific competencies. The experimental group students outperformed their counterparts in terms of overall mean scores for the scientific competencies. On the one hand, the individual competencies of ‘using scientific evidence’ and ‘identifying scientific issues’ of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group. On the other hand, the experimental group students did not outperform their counterparts in terms of competency in ‘explaining phenomena scientifically’. Using an online environment to complement argumentation instruction and organizing argumentation activities focused on related topics may be a potential direction to consider for improving students’ PISA scientific competencies.  相似文献   

18.
课堂话语互动与学习辩证地联接在一起。学习科学的新发展要求不应仅仅研究课堂话语互动环境与结果,更需要实时分析课堂话语互动过程。交互论证分析超越了传统的静态的图尔敏论证模式,能够动态地实时分析课堂话语互动。基于此,本研究聚焦于争论这一典型的课堂话语互动形式,借助交互论证分析,对研究案例进行三步骤分析,不但揭示了学生话语互动中所运用的交互形式,阐明了话语互动质量,而且清晰地描绘了课堂话语互动如何促进个体的深度学习,学生个体的意义构建如何影响小组论断形成,以及作为机构代表的教师如何促进学生的学习。研究表明课堂争论有效促进了学生的深度学习,同时也进一步指出构建新型的教师角色的必要性。  相似文献   

19.
Science classes should support students' development of scientific argumentation. While previous studies have analyzed argumentative texts, they have overlooked the ways in which other types of representations, including images, affect the production of such texts. In addition, studies into the use of visual images in science education have offered mostly qualitative analyses. To fill these gaps in the research, this study used techniques of automated image processing to extract relevant information from student-generated visual artifacts. Specifically, it used a series of image-processing algorithms to automatically extract and quantify features of images created by students to serve as evidence in support of scientific arguments. Using various statistical analyses, we identified the relationships between the extracted features and the students' performance levels in constructing scientific arguments. The results revealed that the presence of water in a student's image correlated significantly with that student's claim and explanation scores and that the amount of water present in a student's image correlated significantly with that student's claim score, but not with their explanation score. These results indicate that automatic image processing can successfully identify image features that affect students' performance in scientific argumentation. Using this analysis as an example, we discuss implications for incorporating automated image processing into further research into scientific argumentation and the development of automated feedback.  相似文献   

20.
Science includes more than just concepts and facts, but also encompasses scientific ways of thinking and reasoning. Students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence the knowledge they bring to the classroom, which impacts their degree of comfort with scientific practices. Consequently, the goal of this study was to investigate 5th grade students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence across three contexts—what scientists do, what happens in science classrooms, and what happens in everyday life. The study also focused on how students' abilities to engage in one practice, argumentation, changed over the school year. Multiple data sources were analyzed: pre‐ and post‐student interviews, videotapes of classroom instruction, and student writing. The results from the beginning of the school year suggest that students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence, varied across the three contexts with students most likely to respond “I don't know” when talking about their science classroom. Students had resources to draw from both in their everyday knowledge and knowledge of scientists, but were unclear how to use those resources in their science classroom. Students' understandings of explanation, argument, and evidence for scientists and for science class changed over the course of the school year, while their everyday meanings remained more constant. This suggests that instruction can support students in developing stronger understanding of these scientific practices, while still maintaining distinct understandings for their everyday lives. Finally, the students wrote stronger scientific arguments by the end of the school year in terms of the structure of an argument, though the accuracy, appropriateness, and sufficiency of the arguments varied depending on the specific learning or assessment task. This indicates that elementary students are able to write scientific arguments, yet they need support to apply this practice to new and more complex contexts and content areas. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 793–823, 2011  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号