共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Pinar Seda Cetin Nihal Dogan Ali Yigit Kutluca 《Journal of Science Teacher Education》2014,25(3):309-331
Research exploring the possible link between quality of argumentation and content knowledge is not straightforward. Some studies suggest a positive relationship (e.g. Dawson & Schibeci in J Biol Educ 38(1):7–12, 2003) while others do not (e.g. Zohar & Nemet in J Res Sci Teach 39:35–62, 2002). This study examined the possible relationship between pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) lines of argument regarding genetic cloning issues and their knowledge of the related content. In the research, pre-service teachers were divided into groups according to the results of a conceptual understanding test on genetic cloning, and were categorized as high, middle and low achievers. After introducing three socio-scientific scenarios (relating to genetic cloning) with the intention of prompting lines of argumentation, the PSTs then participated in semi-structured interviews with the research team. It was revealed that there is not a significant relationship between the quality of socio-scientific argumentation among PSTs and their knowledge of content in the domain of cloning. Explanations for these results are discussed in light of the related literature and with reference to the interviews. 相似文献
2.
3.
Yasemin Ozdem Hamide Ertepinar Jale Cakiroglu Sibel Erduran 《International Journal of Science Education》2013,35(15):2559-2586
The aim of this study was to investigate the kinds of argumentation schemes generated by pre-service elementary science teachers (PSTs) as they perform inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks, and to explore how argumentation schemes vary by task as well as by experimentation and discussion sessions. The model of argumentative and scienti?c inquiry was used as a design framework in the present study. According to the model, the inquiry of scientific topics was employed by groups of participants through experimentation and critical discussion sessions. The participants of the study were 35 PSTs, who teach middle school science to sixth through eighth grade students after graduation. The data were collected through video- and audio-recordings of the discussions made by PSTs in six inquiry-oriented laboratory sessions. For the analysis of data, pre-determined argumentation schemes by Walton were employed. The results illustrated that PSTs applied varied premises rather than only observations or reliable sources to ground their claims or to argue for a case or an action. It is also worthy of notice that the construction and evaluation of scientific knowledge claims resulted in different numbers and kinds of arguments. Results of this study suggest that designing inquiry-oriented laboratory environments, which are enriched with critical discussion, provides discourse opportunities that can support argumentation. Moreover, PSTs can be encouraged to support and promote argumentation in their future science classrooms if they engage in argumentation integrated instructional strategies. 相似文献
4.
Scientific argumentation is an important learning objective in science education. It is also an effective instructional approach to constructivist science learning. The implementation of argumentation in school settings requires science teachers, who are pivotal agents of transforming classroom practices, to develop sophisticated knowledge of argumentation. However, there is a lack of understanding about science teachers’ knowledge of argumentation, especially the dialogic meaning of argumentation. In this case study, we closely examine a high school physics teacher’s argumentation-related pedagogic content knowledge (PCK) in the context of dialogic argumentation. We synthesize the teacher’s performed PCK from his argumentation practices and narrated PCK from his reflection on the argumentation practices, from which we summarize his PCK of argumentation from the perspectives of orientation, instructional strategies, students, curriculum, and assessment. Finally, we describe the teacher’s perception and adaption of argumentation in his class. We also identity the barriers to argumentation implementation in this particular case and suggest solutions to overcome these barriers. 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
Science & Education - Scientific argumentation is a key practice in the construction, confirmation, and legalization of scientific knowledge. Although studies on scientific argumentation have... 相似文献
8.
Argumentation, and the production of scientific arguments are critical elements of inquiry that are necessary for helping students become scientifically literate through engaging them in constructing and critiquing ideas. This case study employed a mixed methods research design to examine the development in 5th grade students’ practices of oral and written argumentation from one unit to another over 16 weeks utilizing the science writing heuristic approach. Data sources included five rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments that occurred over eleven class periods; students’ group writings; interviews with six target students and the teacher; and the researcher’s field notes. The results revealed five salient trends in students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices over time: (1) Students came to use more critique components as they participated in more rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments; (2) by challenging each other’s arguments, students came to focus on the coherence of the argument and the quality of evidence; (3) students came to use evidence to defend, support, and reject arguments; (4) the quality of students’ writing continuously improved over time; and (5) students connected oral argument skills to written argument skills as they had opportunities to revise their writing after debating and developed awareness of the usefulness of critique from peers. Given the development in oral argumentative practices and the quality of written arguments over time, this study indicates that students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices is positively related to each other. This study suggests that argumentative practices should be framed through both a social and epistemic understanding of argument-utilizing talk and writing as vehicles to create norms of these complex practices. 相似文献
9.
Science and Language Teachers’ Assessment of Upper Secondary Students’ Socioscientific Argumentation
Nina Christenson Niklas Gericke Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren 《International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education》2017,15(8):1403-1422
Researchers and policy-makers have recognized the importance of including and promoting socioscientific argumentation in science education worldwide. The Swedish curriculum focuses more than ever on socioscientific issues (SSI) as well. However, teaching socioscientific argumentation is not an easy task for science teachers and one of the more distinguished difficulties is the assessment of students’ performance. In this study, we investigate and compare how science and Swedish language teachers, participating in an SSI-driven project, assessed students’ written argumentation about global warming. Swedish language teachers have a long history of teaching and assessing argumentation and therefore it was of interest to identify possible gaps between the two groups of teachers’ assessment practices. The results showed that the science teachers focused on students’ content knowledge within their subjects, whereas the Swedish language teachers included students’ abilities to select and use content knowledge from reliable reference resources, the structure of the argumentation and the form of language used. Since the Swedish language teachers’ assessment correlated more with previous research about quality in socioscientific argumentation, we suggest that a closer co-operation between the two groups could be beneficial in terms of enhancing the quality of assessment. Moreover, SSI teaching and learning as well as assessment of socioscientific argumentation ought to be included in teacher training programs for both pre- and in-service science teachers. 相似文献
10.
Nina Christenson Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren Dana L. Zeidler 《Research in Science Education》2014,44(4):581-601
In the present STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)-driven society, socioscientific issues (SSI) have become a focus globally and SSI research has grown into an important area of study in science education. Since students attending the social and science programs have a different focus in their studies and research has shown that students attending a science program are less familiar with argumentation practice, we make a comparison of the supporting reasons social science and science majors use in arguing different SSI with the goal to provide important information for pedagogical decisions about curriculum and instruction. As an analytical framework, a model termed SEE-SEP covering three aspects (of knowledge, value, and experiences) and six subject areas (of sociology/culture, economy, environment/ecology, science, ethics/morality, and policy) was adopted to analyze students’ justifications. A total of 208 upper secondary students (105 social science majors and 103 science majors) from Sweden were invited to justify and expound their arguments on four SSI including global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMO), nuclear power, and consumer consumption. The results showed that the social science majors generated more justifications than the science majors, the aspect of value was used most in students’ argumentation regardless of students’ discipline background, and justifications from the subject area of science were most often presented in nuclear power and GMO issues. We conclude by arguing that engaging teachers from different subjects to cooperate when teaching argumentation on SSI could be of great value and provide students from both social science and science programs the best possible conditions in which to develop argumentation skills. 相似文献
11.
Argumentation is a special kind of discourse.It had its own special type of structure、reasoning mode、cohesion and coherence、rhetorical devices.In this dissertation,the writer tries to discuss how to analyze an argumentation from a discoursal view.Also an example is given to support her idea. 相似文献
12.
The research reported in this paper concerns the development of children’s skills of interpreting and evaluating evidence in science. Previous studies have shown that school teaching often places limited emphasis on the development of these skills, which are necessary for children to engage in scientific debate and decision‐making. The research, undertaken in the United Kingdom, involved four collaborative decision‐making activities to stimulate group discussion, each carried out with five groups of four children (10–11 years old). The research shows how the children evaluated evidence for possible choices and judged whether their evidence was sufficient to support a particular conclusion or the rejection of alternative conclusions. A mapping technique was developed to analyse the discussions and identify different “levels” of argumentation. The authors conclude that suitable collaborative activities that focus on the discussion of evidence can be developed to exercise children’s ability to argue effectively in making decisions. 相似文献
13.
Carl-Johan Rundgren Martin Eriksson Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren 《Science & Education》2016,25(9-10):1049-1071
This study aims to explore students’ argumentation and decision-making relating to an authentic socioscientific issue (SSI)—the problem of environmental toxins in fish from the Baltic Sea. A multi-disciplinary instructional module, designed in order to develop students’ skills to argue about complex SSI, was successfully tested. Seven science majors in the final year of their upper secondary studies participated in this study. Their argumentation and decision-making processes were followed closely, and data were collected during multiple stages of the instructional module: group discussions were audio recorded, the participants wrote reports on their decision making, and postexercise interviews were conducted with individual students. The analysis focused on the skill of evaluation demonstrated by the students during the exercise and the relationships between the knowledge, values, and experiences that they used in their argumentation. Even though all of the students had access to the same information and agreed on the factual aspects of the issue, they came to different decisions. All of the students took counter-arguments and the limitations of their claims into account and were able to extend their claims where appropriate. However, their decisions differed depending on their background knowledge, values, and experiences (i.e., their intellectual baggage). The implication to SSI teaching and learning is discussed. 相似文献
14.
Fatma Yaman 《International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education》2018,16(3):421-442
This study investigates the effect of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ (PSTs) argumentative writing and their understanding of the components of argumentation in the SWH approach and their own learning. Ten SWH approach activities were implemented during the semester. The study was carried out with 31 PSTs. A case study design was used. Data included the SWH approach’s grading rubric and semistructured interviews. While the ANOVA and Bonferroni tests were used to analyze the SWH approach’s grading rubric, content analysis was used to analyze the semistructured interviews conducted with 12 PSTs. The ANOVA results showed a statistical difference among the writing performance of the PSTs (F = 14.493, p < 0.01). The findings gathered from the interviews revealed that the quality of the argumentative writing and research skills of the PSTs increased over time. The PSTs made explicit associations among their beginning questions, data and observations, and claims and evidence, and they made distinctions between their data, observations, and evidence. Multiple representations played an important role in providing evidence to support claims. Moreover, the process of negotiation helped PSTs learn more effectively, and they believed that the argument-based inquiry lab was beneficial to their learning and their future vocational careers as teachers. 相似文献
15.
Several studies show that university students in Germany still have problems in reasoning mathematically although this already should be fostered at high school since the implementation of standards for school mathematics. Mathematical argumentation is a core competence and highly important, especially in academic mathematics. To foster mathematical argumentation at the beginning of university studies, competence models are needed which give more detailed insights in the skills that are necessary for reasoning. As mathematical argumentation is a complex process, especially at the higher secondary level or at university, many little steps are needed to complete a competence model for argumentation at the secondary–tertiary transition gradually. A possible step can be to initially identify several aspects of mathematical argumentation competence that influence the reasoning quality. The empirical basis for identifying those aspects is a cross-sectional study with 439 engineering students who participate in a transition course in mathematics. We address the following questions: (1) how is the quality of student’s reasoning? (2) Which kind of arguments do students use? (3) What resources do students who reasoned correctly use for solving the problems? (4) Does the content of the tasks play an important role? The results show a great influence of the content on the reasoning quality, especially if the content is abstract or concrete. Argumentation quality of students decreases with an increasing level of abstraction of the content. Furthermore, the results reveal that students often use routines for solving the problems. That indicates that procedural approaches still play an important role in school mathematics. If procedures could be used for solving the tasks, students are more successful. Competence models for mathematical argumentation at the beginning of the tertiary level should, therefore, include these factors. 相似文献
16.
Research in Science Education - This case study investigated the nature of in-service science teachers’ argumentation and personal epistemology about global climate change during a 3-year... 相似文献
17.
The study explored the changes in pre-service science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and their opinions about the nature of science, science teaching and argumentation after their participation in explicit nature of science (NOS) and socioscientific argumentation processes. The participants were 56 third-grade pre-service science teachers studying in a state university in Turkey. The treatment group comprised 27 participants, and there were 29 participants in the comparison group. The comparison group participants were involved in a student-centred science-teaching process, and the participants of the treatment group were involved in explicit NOS and socioscientific argumentation processes. In the study, which lasted a total of 11 weeks, a NOS-as-argumentation questionnaire was administered to all the participants to determine their understanding of NOS at the beginning and end of the data collection process, and six random participants of the treatment group participated in semi-structured interview questions in order to further understand their views regarding NOS, science teaching and argumentation. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis revealed that the explicit NOS and socioscientific argumentation processes had a significant effect on pre-service science teachers’ NOS understandings. Furthermore, NOS, argumentation and science teaching views of the participants in the treatment group showed a positive change. The results of this study are discussed in light of the related literature, and suggestions are made within the context of contribution to science-teaching literature, improvement of education quality and education of pre-service teachers. 相似文献
18.
This paper approaches learning as a response instead of the acquisition of something previously expected. More specifically, it describes a process of argumentation on socioscientific issues in a classroom situation in school science amongst 15-year-old students in Sweden. The analysis of an argumentation on abortion in a science classroom highlights how science content becomes relevant to students?? experiences, but also how the students?? unique voices shift focus and cause displacement of the science content. The analysis demonstrates some of the tensions and possible conflicts that may lead to the exclusion of different voices. This paper argues that focusing the research or education on questions that argumentation brings to light creates interesting educational opportunities to identify and incorporate the students?? experiences in the classroom. The results indicate, however, that students?? spontaneous acts lead to some difficulties in finding a point of contact with the rational discourse of science education. 相似文献
19.
In his book The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin lays out a structural model by which rhetorical arguments can be analyzed. This paper aims to introduce the argument model, analyze its theoretical foundation, and discuss its application in classroom teaching. 相似文献
20.
This study examined the extent to which fifth-grade students participate in online argumentation and the argument patterns they produced about the inquiry-based investigations completed using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in their science classes. One hundred twenty-nine students from five classes of two teachers in a Midwestern public school completed two inquiry-based investigation units, one per semester, followed by asynchronous online discussions using the Moodle forum. Among the 129 students, 107 students produced 739 notes in the plant investigation online discussion and 111 students produced 686 notes in the human health investigation online discussion. Results indicate that students were actively engaged in the online discussions about inquiry investigations with comments being focused on providing more evidence and backing for claims and negotiating evidence in both investigations. The students also engaged in challenging and querying the test procedures and reference sources as the basis for evidence. Implications are discussed for science teaching and learning and further study on argument-based inquiry in online environments. 相似文献