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 125 毫秒
1.
Whereas there are some studies presenting the effects of argumentation on science knowledge development, there is still a need for research discovering the interrelationship between knowledge and argumentation. The purpose of this research was to investigate a possible relationship between students?? engagement in argumentation and their conceptual knowledge. A case study design was carried out for this research. The participants of the study were tenth graders studying in an urban all-girls school. There were 5 argumentations promoted in different contexts which were embedded through the dynamics chapter, for a 10-week period. Some of the conclusions drawn from the study are as follows: First, students?? quantity and quality of arguments improve through time as they get more involved with argumentation. Second, students?? knowledge does not improve instantly when they are involved with argumentation activities, that is, knowledge development in an argumentation process takes time. Third, students?? prior knowledge affects their participation in argumentation. Last, there are some patterns that indicate the relationship between argumentation and knowledge. However, students?? arguments and their knowledge do not develop at the same time.  相似文献   

2.
In this review essay I respond to issues raised in Mijung Kim and Wolff-Michael Roth’s paper titled “Dialogical argumentation in elementary science classrooms”, which presents a study dealing with dialogical argumentation in early elementary school classrooms. Since there is very limited research on lower primary school students’ argumentation in school science, their paper makes a contribution to research on children’s argumentation skills. In this response, I focus on two main issues to extend the discussion in Kim and Roth’s paper: (a) methodological issues including conducting a quantitative study on children’s argumentation levels and focusing on children’s written argumentation in addition to their dialogical argumentation, and (b) investigating children’s conceptual understanding along with their argumentation levels. Kim and Roth emphasize the difficulty in determining the level of children’s argumentation through the Toulmin’s Argument Pattern and lack of high level arguments by children due to their difficulties in writing texts. Regarding these methodological issues, I suggest designing quantitative research on coding children’s argument levels because such research could potentially provide important findings on children’s argumentation. Furthermore, I discuss alternative written products including posters, figures, or pictures generated by children in order to trace children’s arguments, and finally articulating argumentation and conceptual understanding of children.  相似文献   

3.
This study investigated the effects of students’ prior science knowledge and online learning approaches (social and individual) on their learning with regard to three topics: science concepts, inquiry, and argumentation. Two science teachers and 118 students from 4 eighth-grade science classes were invited to participate in this research. Students in each class were divided into three groups according to their level of prior science knowledge; they then took either our social- or individual-based online science learning program. The results show that students in the social online argumentation group performed better in argumentation and online argumentation learning. Qualitative analysis indicated that the students’ social interactions benefited the co-construction of sound arguments and the accurate understanding of science concepts. In constructing arguments, students in the individual online argumentation group were limited to knowledge recall and self-reflection. High prior-knowledge students significantly outperformed low prior-knowledge students in all three aspects of science learning. However, the difference in inquiry and argumentation performance between low and high prior-knowledge students decreased with the progression of online learning topics.  相似文献   

4.
Socio-scientific issues in class have been proposed in an effort to democratise science in society. A micro-ethnographic approach has been used to explore how students elaborate arguments on a socio-scientific controversy in the context of small group discussions. Several processes of group argumentation have been identified. Students’ arguments were elaborated from scientific data, common ideas and epistemological and strategic considerations. Students’ social interactions influenced the patterns of argumentation elaborated within the group discussions. Implications of this study for the teaching of socio-scientific issues in class are discussed.  相似文献   

5.
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of an intervention on pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation and explore the challenges they experienced while implementing argumentation. Forty pre-service science teachers in their final semester of schooling participated in an intervention that lasted for 11 weeks. Intervention focused on participants’ understanding of argumentation as a scientific practice and as a pedagogical tool. The participants engaged in argument construction, evaluation, and critique, taught three argumentation lessons, engaged in peer observation of teaching, and reflection on their teaching skills. Data were collected through Argumentation Self-Efficacy Scale and an open-ended questionnaire. The results show that the intervention had a significantly positive effect on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy. Despite this reported self-efficacy, participants experienced significant challenges in guiding their students to construct scientific arguments and assessing the arguments developed by their students. Discussion focuses on implications for professional development of pre-service and in-service science teachers.  相似文献   

6.
South African student teachers were studied to see how they coped with requirements to teach science using argumentation. Lesson observations, plans, reflective logs, post-teaching interviews and assessment of pupils’ argumentation were used to compare student teachers’ preparedness and interactions with pupils. Two clusters of students were identified representing high preparedness and low interaction. A high degree of preparedness alone did not guarantee high levels of argumentation. Schools’ educational situations were independent of success in teaching argumentation. The outcomes and implications for further development of teaching critical thinking are discussed.  相似文献   

7.
The purpose of this study is to explore how Lakatos’ scientific research programmes might serve as a theoretical framework for representing and evaluating informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues. Seventy undergraduate science and non‐science majors were asked to make written arguments about four socio‐scientific issues. Our analysis showed that the science majors’ informal arguments were significantly better than the non‐science majors’ arguments. In terms of the resources for supporting reasons, we find that personal experience and scientific belief are the two categories that are generated most often in both groups of the participants. Besides, science majors made significantly greater use of analogies, while non‐science majors made significantly greater use of authority. In addition, both science majors and non‐science majors had a harder time changing their arguments after participating in a group discussion. In the study of argumentation in science, scholars have often used Toulmin’s framework of data, warrant, backing, qualifiers, claims, and rebuttal. Our work demonstrates that Lakatos’ work is also a viable perspective, especially when warrant and backing are difficult to discern, and when students’ arguments are resistant to change. Our use of Lakatos’ framework highlights how the ‘hard core’ of students’ arguments about socio‐scientific issues does, indeed, seem to be protected by a ‘protective belt’ and, thus, is difficult to alter. From these insights, we make specific implications for further research and teaching.  相似文献   

8.
Background Argumentation is an important discourse process in science that needs to be taught and learned as part of a repertoire of strategies to support the acquisition of scientific literacy. Research in science education indicates that beliefs or perceptions and the epistemological orientations of teachers influence their approaches to science teaching.

Purpose The paper aims to illustrate primary pre-service teachers’ understanding of argumentation based on a study using quantitative methodology. In particular, it aims to illustrate how these teachers view quality of arguments and teaching strategies related to argumentation in the context of a socio-scientific issue on energy.

Sample 332 pre-service teachers enrolled in a university teacher education programme in Spain were investigated. Many studies on argumentation have been conducted with small sample sizes of teachers. Hence, given the sample size, the study provides findings that are likely to be generalisable.

Design and methods A questionnaire was administered to the participants. The design of the questionnaire was guided by some existing analytical tools which were adapted for primary education purposes in the context of socio-scientific issues. This adaptation is novel in that the questionnaire items can potentially be used as diagnostic questions to assess primary teachers’ understanding of argumentation.

Results The results suggest that pre-service teachers had difficulty in understanding arguments and different pedagogical strategies to promote argumentation in classroom. For example, they did not understand the role and the meaning of warrants in scientific arguments and their understanding of the use of different kind of strategies is limited to debates, open discussions and experiments. The age range of the participants and the length of teaching experience had no impact on the quality of their understanding of argumentation.

Conclusions Pre-service science teacher education will benefit from incorporation of more robust and lengthy sessions on argumentation. For example, sessions could focus on quality as well as structure of arguments in science and more diverse pedagogical strategies to support argumentation in science lessons, such as the use of writing frames and presentations.  相似文献   


9.
Scientific argumentation is one of the core practices for teachers to implement in science classrooms. We developed a computer-based formative assessment to support students’ construction and revision of scientific arguments. The assessment is built upon automated scoring of students’ arguments and provides feedback to students and teachers. Preliminary validity evidence was collected in this study to support the use of automated scoring in this formative assessment. The results showed satisfactory psychometric properties related to this formative assessment. The automated scores showed satisfactory agreement with human scores, but small discrepancies still existed. Automated scores and feedback encouraged students to revise their answers. Students’ scientific argumentation skills improved during the revision process. These findings provided preliminary evident to support the use of automated scoring in the formative assessment to diagnose and enhance students’ argumentation skills in the context of climate change in secondary school science classrooms.  相似文献   

10.
Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education   总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2  
Given a sociocultural framework of teaching and learning, argumentation and discourse become central elements of education, particularly in science education because of argumentation’s key role in scientific communities. This study documents preservice teachers’ perceptions of and aptitudes related to argumentation as they participated in a science methods course designed to promote discourse and argumentation. Data sources consisted of instructor reflections, course documents, and student work. Participants tended to view argumentation as a central element of science and as a means for promoting conceptual development in science classrooms. They were generally adept in the construction of arguments, particularly with respect to the evidentiary support of claims and demonstrated improved practice as the course progressed. Implications for using this course as a model and suggestions for its improvement are discussed.  相似文献   

11.
Current research indicates that student engagement in scientific argumentation can foster a better understanding of the concepts and the processes of science. Yet opportunities for students to participate in authentic argumentation inside the science classroom are rare. There also is little known about science teachers' understandings of argumentation, their ability to participate in this complex practice, or their views about using argumentation as part of the teaching and learning of science. In this study, the researchers used a cognitive appraisal interview to examine how 30 secondary science teachers evaluate alternative explanations, generate an argument to support a specific explanation, and investigate their views about engaging students in argumentation. The analysis of the teachers' comments and actions during the interview indicates that these teachers relied primarily on their prior content knowledge to evaluate the validity of an explanation rather than using available data. Although some of the teachers included data and reasoning in their arguments, most of the teachers crafted an argument that simply expanded on a chosen explanation but provided no real support for it. The teachers also mentioned multiple barriers to the integration of argumentation into the teaching and learning of science, primarily related to their perceptions of students' ability levels, even though all of these teachers viewed argumentation as a way to help students understand science. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 1122–1148, 2012  相似文献   

12.
This paper explores the argumentation ability of ten science teachers in two South African schools on opposite ends of the resource spectrum. Toulmin's model is used to analyse individual contributions in six group discussions. The findings show that levels of argumentation improve with teachers’ involvement in the development of teaching resources and the closeness of the argumentation task. The nature of the arguments is permeated by inclusiveness, thus precluding the use of rebuttals, traditionally a requirement for high-quality arguments. Based on the ubuntu worldview, a model of inclusive argumentation is proposed with implication for teaching and a scheme of assessable levels of argumentation.  相似文献   

13.
The ability to build arguments is a crucial skill and a central educational goal in all school subjects including science as it enables students to formulate reasoned opinions and thus to cope with the increasing complexity of knowledge. In the present cross-sectional study, we examined the domain-specificity of argumentative writing in science by comparing it with a rather general type of argumentation as promoted in first-language education and with formal reasoning to gain insight into different forms of argumentation on theoretical and empirical levels. Using a paper-and-pencil test, we analyzed written argumentations and the reasoning abilities of 3,274 Grade-10 students in German secondary schools. Correlation and multiple regression analyses as well as a qualitative analysis of students' answers to a subset of tasks in the domains of science and first-language education were conducted. Results showed moderate relations between argumentation in science, argumentation in first-language education, and reasoning. Half of the variance in argumentation in science was explained by individual differences in argumentation in first-language education and reasoning. Furthermore, the examination of written arguments revealed differences, for example, in students' weighing of pros and cons. We assume that the familiarity of the underlying scientific information may play an essential role in the argumentation process and posit that it needs to be investigated in more detail. Overall, the study indicates that investigating the argumentational abilities of learners in first-language education and reasoning abilities can help to shed light on the domain-specificity of argumentation in science.  相似文献   

14.
Formative assessment, bilingualism, and argumentation when combined can enrich bilingual scientific literacy. However, argumentation receives little attention in the practice of bilingual science education. This article describes the effect of a formative assessment-based pedagogical strategy in promoting university students’ argumentation. It examines the written and oral arguments produced by 54 undergraduates (28 females and 26 males, 16–21 years old) in Colombia during a university bilingual (Spanish-English) science course. The data used in this analysis was derived from students’ written responses, and audio and video recordings. The first goal of this study was to determine how this teaching strategy could help students increase the use of English as a means of communication in argumentation in science. The second goal was to establish the potential of the strategy to engage students in argumentative classroom interactions as an essential part of formative assessment. The findings show that the strategy provided participants with opportunities to write their argumentation in Spanish, in English and in a hybrid version using code-switching. Educational implications for higher education are discussed.  相似文献   

15.
Toulmin's model of argumentation, developed in 1958, has guided much argumentation research in education. However, argumentation theory in philosophy and cognitive science has advanced considerably since 1958. There are currently several alternative frameworks of argumentation that can be useful for both research and practice in education. These frameworks include Walton's dialogue theory and Bayesian models of everyday arguments. This article reviews and evaluates these frameworks and shows how each can be applied instructionally (e.g., through the teaching of critical questions or probability modeling) and, from a research standpoint, in evaluating the content and quality of informal arguments. It is concluded that attention to these and other contemporary argumentation frameworks can help move the study of argumentation in education forward.  相似文献   

16.
One of the goals of science education is to provide students with the ability to construct arguments—reasoning and thinking critically in a scientific context. Over the years, many studies have been conducted on constructing arguments in science teaching, but only few of them have dealt with studying argumentation in the laboratory. Our research focuses on the process in which students construct arguments in the chemistry laboratory while conducting various types of experiments. It was found that inquiry experiments have the potential to serve as an effective platform for formulating arguments, owing to the features of this learning environment. The discourse during inquiry-type experiments was found to be rich in arguments, whereas that during confirmatory-type experiments was found to be sparse in arguments. The arguments, which were developed during the discourse of an open inquiry experiment, focus on the hypothesis-building stage, analysis of the results, and drawing appropriate conclusions.  相似文献   

17.
This study investigated the effects of a science and society intervention on elementary school students’ argumentation skills and their attitudes toward science. One hundred and eleven fifth grade students volunteered as an experimental group to join a 12-week intervention; another 107 sixth grade students volunteered to be the comparison group. All participants completed the Student Questionnaire at the beginning and end of this study. Observation and interview results were used to triangulate and consolidate the quantitative findings. The data showed that after the intervention, the quality of the experimental group students’ arguments and their attitudes toward science were significantly higher than their comparison group counterparts. In addition, the experimental group boys made significantly greater progress in the quality of their argumentation from the pretest to posttest than the girls; and low achievers made the most significant progress in their attitudes toward science and quality of argumentation. Interviews and observations indicated that their understandings of explanation and argumentation changed over the intervention. This indicated that a science and society intervention can enhance both the ability of students to develop strong arguments and their attitudes toward science.  相似文献   

18.
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   

19.
Argumentation is fundamental to science education, both as a prominent feature of scientific reasoning and as an effective mode of learning—a perspective reflected in contemporary frameworks and standards. The successful implementation of argumentation in school science, however, requires a paradigm shift in science assessment from the measurement of knowledge and understanding to the measurement of performance and knowledge in use. Performance tasks requiring argumentation must capture the many ways students can construct and evaluate arguments in science, yet such tasks are both expensive and resource-intensive to score. In this study we explore how machine learning text classification techniques can be applied to develop efficient, valid, and accurate constructed-response measures of students' competency with written scientific argumentation that are aligned with a validated argumentation learning progression. Data come from 933 middle school students in the San Francisco Bay Area and are based on three sets of argumentation items in three different science contexts. The findings demonstrate that we have been able to develop computer scoring models that can achieve substantial to almost perfect agreement between human-assigned and computer-predicted scores. Model performance was slightly weaker for harder items targeting higher levels of the learning progression, largely due to the linguistic complexity of these responses and the sparsity of higher-level responses in the training data set. Comparing the efficacy of different scoring approaches revealed that breaking down students' arguments into multiple components (e.g., the presence of an accurate claim or providing sufficient evidence), developing computer models for each component, and combining scores from these analytic components into a holistic score produced better results than holistic scoring approaches. However, this analytical approach was found to be differentially biased when scoring responses from English learners (EL) students as compared to responses from non-EL students on some items. Differences in the severity between human and computer scores for EL between these approaches are explored, and potential sources of bias in automated scoring are discussed.  相似文献   

20.
  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