17,529 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL
Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N
Developing Pre-Service Teachersβ Evidence-Based Argumentation skills on Socio-Scientific Issues
We report on a study of the effect of meta-level awareness on the use of evidence in discourse. The participants were 66 pre-service teachers who were engaged in a dialogic activity. Meta-level awareness regarding the use of evidence in discourse was heightened by having same-side peers collaborating in arguing on the computer against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue on the topic of Climate Change and by engaging in explicit reflective activities on the use of evidence. Participants showed significant advances both in their skill of producing evidence-based arguments and counterarguments and regarding the accuracy of the evidence used. Advances were also observed at the meta-level, reflecting at least implicit understanding that using evidence is an important goal of argumentation. Another group of pre-service teachers, who studied about the role of evidence in science in the context of regular curriculum and served as a control condition, did not exhibit comparable advances in the use of evidence in argumentation. Educational implications are discussed
The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment
The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria
Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically
In this article we describe the emerging area of text classification research focused on the problem of collaborative learning process analysis both from a broad perspective and more specifically in terms of a publicly available tool set called TagHelper tools. Analyzing the variety of pedagogically valuable facets of learnersβ interactions is a time consuming and effortful process. Improving automated analyses of such highly valued processes of collaborative learning by adapting and applying recent text classification technologies would make it a less arduous task to obtain insights from corpus data. This endeavor also holds the potential for enabling substantially improved on-line instruction both by providing teachers and facilitators with reports about the groups they are moderating and by triggering context sensitive collaborative learning support on an as-needed basis. In this article, we report on an interdisciplinary research project, which has been investigating the effectiveness of applying text classification technology to a large CSCL corpus that has been analyzed by human coders using a theory-based multidimensional coding scheme. We report promising results and include an in-depth discussion of important issues such as reliability, validity, and efficiency that should be considered when deciding on the appropriateness of adopting a new technology such as TagHelper tools. One major technical contribution of this work is a demonstration that an important piece of the work towards making text classification technology effective for this purpose is designing and building linguistic pattern detectors, otherwise known as features, that can be extracted reliably from texts and that have high predictive power for the categories of discourse actions that the CSCL community is interested in
Presenting Arguments as Fictive Dialogue
Presentation of an argument can take many different forms ranging from a monologue to advanced graphics and diagrams. This paper investigates the presentation of one or more arguments in the form of a fictive dialogue. This technique was already employed by Plato, who used fictive conversations between Socrates and his contemporaries to put his arguments forward. Ever since, there have been influential authors β including Desiderius Erasmus, Sir Thomas More and Mark Twain β that have used dialogue in this way. In this paper, we define the notion of a fictive dialogue, motivate it is as a topic for investigation, and present a qualitative and quantitative study of five fictive dialogues by well-known authors. We conclude by indicating how our preliminary and ongoing investigations may inform the development of systems that automatically generate argumentative fictive dialogue
κ³Όν λ Όλ³ μμ μμ λνλλ κ΅μ¬λ€μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ€νκ³Ό νμλ€μ νμμ£Όμ²΄μ± νμ
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ(λ°μ¬)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :μ¬λ²λν κ³Όνκ΅μ‘κ³Ό(μλ¬Όμ 곡),2019. 8. κΉν¬λ°±.λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬μμλ κ³Όν μμ
μμ λνλλ κ΅μ¬μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ€νκ³Ό μ λ΅μ μ£Όμ λ³λ‘ νμνμλ€. λνμ νꡬλ κ΅μ¬μ νμ μ¬μ΄μ μνΈμμ©μ μꡬνκ³ μμ΄μ, κ΅μ¬μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ©μ λν΄ νμλ€μ΄ 보μ΄λ λ
Όλ³μ νμ주체μ±μ νμνλ κ²μ΄ νμνλ€. λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ μ‘°μμ μ΄μ μ λ νꡬνλ λ° μ€ννλ μνμ΄ μ΄λ €μ΄ ν리ν μλ¬Ό μμ
μμ μΈμ§μ μ΄μ μ λ νꡬ κ΅μ/νμ΅ λ°©λ²μΌλ‘ λ
Όλ³νλμ νμ©ν κ°λ₯μ±μ νμνλλ° κ·Έ λͺ©μ μ λκ³ μλ€. λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬μμλ ν리νμ κ³Όν κ΅μ¬ 4λͺ
κ³Ό κ·Έλ€μ΄ κ°λ₯΄μΉλ νμλ€μ μ°Έμ¬μλ‘ νμ¬ μ§μ μ¬λ‘ μ°κ΅¬κ° μνλμλ€. μ΄ 20μ°¨μμ μμ
μ λν λ
Ήν, λ
Ήμ μ μ¬λ³Έμ μ£Όλ μλ£λ‘ μ¬μ©νμμΌλ©°, λ°λ³΅μ λΉκ΅λΆμλ²μ μ¬μ©νμ¬ λ΄νμμ λλ¬λλ κ΅μ¬μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ©κ³Ό νμλ€μ λ
Όλ³μ νμ주체μ±μ μ°Ύμλ€. λν μ§μ μλ£λ€μ νλΉμ±μ ν보νκΈ° μν΄ μ€λ¬Έμ‘°μ¬, 곡μ λ° λΉκ³΅μ λ©΄λ΄, λΉμ°Έμ¬ κ΄μ°° μλ£λ₯Ό μΆκ°μ μΌλ‘ μ¬μ©νμμΌλ©°, μ΄λ¬ν μλ£λ₯Ό νμ©νμ¬ κ΅μ/νμ΅μ λ³Έμ±, κ΅μ€ λ
Όλ³νλμ λ³Έμ±κ³Ό μ₯μ μ λν κ΅μ¬λ€μ μ§μκ³Ό μ λ
μ μ΄ν΄ν μ μμλ€.
κ·Όκ±°μ΄λ‘ μ λ°λ³΅μ λΉκ΅λΆμλ²μ ν΅νμ¬ μ°λ°μ μ§μ λ¨κ³(contingency phase)μ μ§μ μλ©Έ λ¨κ³(fading phase)μμ λνλλ κ΅μ¬μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ€ν λ° νμλ€μ λ
Όλ³μ νμ주체μ±μ μ°Ύμλ΄μ΄ λ²μ£Όννμλ€. 4κ° λ°μμ κ°κ° 5μ°¨μμ© μ΄ 20μ°¨μμ μμ
μ λΆμνμ¬ μ°λ°μ μ§μ λ¨κ³λ‘λΆν° μ§μ μλ©Έ λ¨κ³λ‘ μ΄ννλ λ
Όμκ³Όμ μ μ°Ύκ³ , μ¬κΈ°μ λλ¬λλ κ΅μ¬μ νμ κ°μ λνμ μνΈμμ©μ λμ£Όμ μ μμ£Όμ λ‘ λ²μ£Όννμλ€. μ νμ°κ΅¬μμ μ μλ λΆμν νμ© λ°©λ²κ³Ό λ°μ΄ν°λ‘λΆν° κ·λ©μ μΌλ‘ μ°Ύμλ΄λ λ°©λ²μ νΌν©Β·μ μ©νμ¬ κ° μ£Όμ λ€μ λμΆνμλ€. μ½λ체κ³λ κ΅μ¬μ νμμ λνμ μνΈμμ©μ μ΄ν΄νκΈ° μν΄ λ§λ€μ΄μ§ κ²μΌλ‘, λνμ μ ν λΆμκ³Ό λνμμ λνλλ μν λΆμμ μ΄μ μ λμλ€. λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ©μ νμλ€μ νμμ£Όμ²΄μ± λ°νμ μν΄ κ΅μ¬κ° λ΄νμ μ§μμΌλ‘ μ 곡ν κ²μ΄λ€. νμλ€μ μ°λ°μ μ§μ λ¨κ³μμλ μμ²λ λ°μμ μ£Όλ‘ νλ©΄μ λνμ νꡬμ μ°Έμ¬νκ³ μ ν λ° λΉν΄, μ§μ μλ©Έ λ¨κ³μμλ μμ²λ°μ§ μμ λ°μμ νλ©΄μ λνμ νꡬμ μ°Έμ¬νμλ€. λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ κ΅μ¬μ νμλ€μ λνμ μνΈμμ©μ μ΄μ μ λκ³ μμ΄μ, λ λ¨κ³μμ λνλλ κ΅μ¬μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© ν둬ννΈμ νμλ€μ λ°μμ΄ λͺ¨λ κΈ°λ‘λμλ€. κ΅μ¬μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© ν둬ννΈλ κ°λ
μ , λΆμμ , λ°μ±μ μΌλ‘ λ²μ£Όνλμκ³ , μ΄λ€μ κ° λ¨κ³λ³λ‘ λ€λ₯Έ μν μ νλ€κ³ λλ¬λ¬λ€. κ΅μ¬μ μ€μΊν΄λ©μ μ°λ°μ μ§μ λ¨κ³μμλ μ¬μ μ§μ μ°κ³ μꡬ, λ΄μ©μ μ¬μμ½ μꡬ, μμ
λ΄νμ κΈ°μ¬ μꡬ, μ§μ μ μ¬κ΅¬μ± μꡬ, μμλ λ°μμ μν ννΈ μ 곡, νμλ€μ μ§μμ μΈ ν λ‘ μ°Έκ°λ₯Ό μν μ±
μκ° λΆμ¬ λ±μ μν μ ν λ° λΉνμ¬, μ§μ μλ©Έ λ¨κ³μμλ ν λ‘ μ§μμ μν μ§μ, ν λ‘ νμ₯μ μν ν둬ννΈ μ 곡, νμλ€μ μλ νμ₯ κΈ°ν μ 곡 λ±μ μν μ νμλ€. λνμ μνΈμμ©μμ νμλ€μ΄ λλ¬λΈ λ
Όλ³μ νμ주체μ±μ λ λ¨κ³μμ λͺ¨λ κΈμ μ μν μ νμλ€. μμ μ μ£Όμ₯ μ 곡과 μ§μ§λ₯Ό μν μΆλ‘ μ νμμΌλ©°, κΈ°μ‘΄ μ£Όμ₯μ λν λͺ
λ£ν, μ΄μ λν λ°λ°κ³Ό νκ° κ³Όμ μμ λΉνμ μ¬κ³ λ₯Ό λλ¬λλ€.
μ°κ΅¬ κ²°κ³Όμμ 4λͺ
μ κ΅μ¬λ λ
Όλ³νλ μ§μμ μν΄ μλ‘ λ€λ₯Έ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ€νμ λ³΄μΈ κ²μΌλ‘ λνλ¬λλ°, μ΄λ¬ν μ°¨μ΄λ κ΅μ¬λ€μ κ΅μ/νμ΅μ λν μ§μκ³Ό μ λ
, λ
Όλ³νλμ λ³Έμ±κ³Ό μ₯μ μ λν μ§μκ³Ό μ λ
μ΄ λ€μν μμ€μ 보μΈλ€λ κ²κ³Ό κ΄λ ¨μ΄ μλ€. μ΄λ¬ν μ λ
λ€μ λ
Όλ³νλμ κ΅μμ μ κ·Ό(SSI κΈ°λ° λλ λ΄μ© κΈ°λ°)μ λν νλ μ΄λ°μ μν₯μ λ―Έμ³€κ³ , λ λμκ° κ·Έλ€μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ€νκ³Ό μ λ΅μ μν₯μ μ£Όμλ€. κ΅μ¬κ° μ°λ°μ μ§μ λ¨κ³μμ κ΅μμ μ κ·Όμ λν νλ μ΄λ°κ³Ό κ΄λ ¨νμ¬ μ μν λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ€νμ μ μ ν μΈμμ μ€νμ μν μ λ΅ κ΅¬μ¬νκΈ°, νμ λ¬Έν ꡬμΆνκΈ°, κ°λ
μ -λ°μ±μ μ§λ¬ΈνκΈ°, 곡λμ ν©μλ₯Ό μν΄ νμλ€μ μμ΄λμ΄μ μ μ°ν μμΈ κ°μ§κΈ°λ‘ λνλ¬λ€. μ§μ μλ©Έ λ¨κ³μμλ νμλ€μ μ§μ μμ μΈμνκΈ°, νμμ λνμ μνΈμμ© μ°Έμ¬ μμ§μ λ―Όκ°νκΈ° λ±μ μ€μΊν΄λ©μ 보μλ€. κ° κ΅μ¬λ μ°λ°μ μ§μ λ¨κ³μμ νμλ€μ λ
Όλ³μ νμμ£Όμ²΄μ± μ§μμ μν΄ λ κ°μ§μ μλ‘ λ€λ₯΄μ§λ§ μ°κ΄λ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ λ΅μ μ¬μ©νμλ€. κ΅μ¬ Loidaλ SSI κΈ°λ° μμ
μμ μ μ ν μΈμμ μ€νμ μν μ λ΅μ ꡬμ¬ν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ 1) νμλ€λ‘ νμ¬κΈ μ¬μ κ³Όν μ§μμ μ¬μ©νμ¬ λ¨μν κ°λ
μΌλ‘λΆν° μΆμμ μΈ κ°λ
μ ꡬμ±νλλ‘ νμκ³ , 2) κ·Έλ€μ΄ μ€μ λ‘ κ²½ννμμ§ν μλ리μ€λ₯Ό μ 곡νμλ€. κ΅μ¬ Carloλ νμ λ¬Έν ꡬμΆμ μν΄ 1) μ€λ¦½μ κ΄μ μ μ 곡ν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ ν΅ν© λ°©ν₯μ νμμ΄ μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ§λλ‘ νμκ³ , 2) μ΄μ§μ μμ΄λμ΄λ₯Ό μλ ΄μμΌ κ³΅λμ ν©μλ₯Ό μ΄λμ΄λ΄μλ€. κ΅μ¬ Donμ λ΄μ© κΈ°λ° μμ
μμ 1) μ¬μ€μ μΈ μ κ· κ°λ
μ μ΄μ©ν μ§λ¬ΈνκΈ°, 2) λ°μ±μ νꡬλ₯Ό ν΅ν λ
Όμ νμ₯νκΈ°λ₯Ό μ€νν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ κ°λ
μ -λ°μ±μ μ§λ¬Έμ μ€μΊν΄λ©μ λλ¬λλ€. λ§μ§λ§μΌλ‘, 곡λμ ν©μλ₯Ό μν΄ νμλ€μ μμ΄λμ΄μ μ μ°ν μμΈ κ°μ§κΈ°λ₯Ό λ³΄μΈ κ΅μ¬ Mariaλ 1) λνμ μ€νμμ μ°λ°μ μ§μμ κ°ννμκ³ , 2) νμλ€μ μ§μ§ μ¦κ°μ μ΄λ€μ λ΄νμ μ μ²΄μ± μ¦μ§μ μ‘°μ¨νμλ€. λΆμ κ²°κ³Όλ ν리νμ κ³Όν μμ
μμ λ
Όλ³νλμ ν΅ν΄ μΈμ§μ μ΄μ μ λ νꡬνμ΅μ΄ κ°λ₯ν¨μ 보μ¬μ€λ€. μ‘°μμ μ΄μ μ λ νꡬνλ λ° μ€ν κΈ°λ° νꡬ νλ μνμ΄ μ νμ μΈ ν리ν κ΅μ€ νκ²½μμ νꡬ κΈ°λ° κ΅μ‘μ κΈμ μ μΈ λμμ μ 곡ν μ°κ΅¬λΌ νκ² λ€. κ΅μ¬μ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ© μ€νμ΄ κ·Έλ€μ κ΅μ/νμ΅μ λ³Έμ±, κ΅μ€ λ
Όλ³νλμ λ³Έμ±κ³Ό μ₯μ μ λν λ€μν μμ€μ μ§μ/μ λ
κ³Ό κ΄λ ¨λμλ€λ κ²°κ³Όλ‘ λ³Ό λ, μλΉ κ΅μ¬μ νμ§ κ΅μ¬λ€μ ꡬμ±μ£Όμμ μ λ
μ κ³λ°μν¬ μ μλ κ΅μ¬ μ λ¬Έμ± ν₯μ(PD) νλ‘κ·Έλ¨μ΄ μꡬλλ€. μ΄λ¬ν νλ‘κ·Έλ¨μ κ΅μ¬λ€λ‘ νμ¬κΈ νꡬ κΈ°λ° κ΅μμ λν νλ μ΄λ°μ κ°λλ‘ νκ³ λνμ μ€μΊν΄λ©μ ν΅νμ¬ λ
Όλ³νλκ³Ό κ°μ νꡬ κΈ°λ° κ΅μ μ€νμ ν μ μλλ‘ λμΈ κ²μ΄λ€. λν, μ΄λ¬ν κ΅μ¬ μ λ¬Έμ± ν₯μ νλ‘κ·Έλ¨μ΄ λͺ¨κ΅μ΄ κΈ°λ° λ€μΈμ΄ κ΅μ‘(MTB-MLE) νλ‘κ·Έλ¨μ μ±κ³΅κ³Ό ν¨κ» λ
Όλ³νλ μ΄μ§μ μν μΈμ΄ μ¬μ© κ·Ήλνμ κ·Έ λͺ©μ μ λλλ° λν΄ ν¨μλ₯Ό μ 곡νκ³ , μΆκ°μ μΈ νμ μ°κ΅¬λ₯Ό μ μνμλ€.The study thematically explored the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and strategies in classroom argumentation implementation. As dialogic inquiry involves interrelated responses, students expressions of argumentative agency in response to their teachers dialogic scaffolding were also thematically explored. This study was conducted to investigate the potentials of classroom argumentation to become a minds-on inquiry teaching method in the Philippine biology education due to the limitations of schools for hands-on or laboratory-based instructions. The study employed the qualitative multiple-case study research design which involved four science teachers and their students in the Philippines. Robust amount of data which were analyzed through constant comparison method to establish themes representative of the teachers dialogic scaffolding and students expressions of argumentative agency where taken from audio- and video transcripts of a total of 20 lesson transcripts; five lessons observed from each teacher. These were supplemented with other data obtained through survey, formal and informal interview, and non-participant observations to establish the teachers profile regarding their knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation.
Thematic analyses for both the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and students expressions of argumentative agency in both the contingency and fading phases followed the grounded theory methodology through constant comparison method. This was applied to the total of 20 classroom transcripts (five from each) of the four classes to develop the themes and subthemes which represented the interrelated categories of teachers and students dialogic exchange which sustained their argumentative discussions from the contingency phases to the fading phases. In the coding process, themes were developed using the combined inductive and template approaches which merged the a priori and data-driven codes. The codebooks that were generated were particularly focused on types of dialogues and the roles played by these dialogues to establish the interplay of teachers and students dialogic interactions. Dialogic scaffolding in this study was used as discursive support provided by the teachers to elicit students expressions of argumentative agency. Students expressions of argumentative agency on the other hand, were focused on their willingness to participate in the dialogic inquiry with solicited responses in the contingency phases and unsolicited responses in the fading phases. As the study was focused on the dialogic exchange, the roles of the teachers dialogic scaffolding prompts and students responses were noted in both the contingency and fading phases of their discussions. Teachers dialogic scaffolding prompts were classified as conceptual, analytical, and reflective and were expressed in different roles such as linking statements to prior knowledge, recapitulating, appropriating, recasting, cued eliciting, and increasing perspectives in the contingency phase while supporting, being a tool for communication, and extending students capacities in the fading phase. Students dialogic roles to express their argumentative agency on the other hand, can either be constructive which supported or provided reasons to claims or critic which clarified, challenged, or evaluated existing claims.
Results showed that the teachers had different dialogic scaffolding practices for classroom argumentation implementation. These differences were affected by their varying levels of knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation. These beliefs eventually affected their framing of instructional approaches to implement classroom argumentation (SSI-based or content-based) which further influenced their dialogic scaffolding practices and strategies. Four themes, which were associated to their framing of instructional approaches, emerged as the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices in the contingency phase namely: 1) appropriation strategies, 2) enactment of the culture of negotiation, 3) conceptual-reflective questioning, and 4) flexible affirmations of students ideas for collective consensus. In the fading phase, two themes represented the teachers dialogic scaffolding and similarly, these were aligned to their instructional approaches to classroom argumentation implementation. In order to implement their personal dialogic scaffolding practices, each teacher employed two different but related dialogic scaffolding strategies to support the students expressions of argumentative agency in the contingency phases. In the SSI-based classes, using the appropriation strategies, Teacher Loida dialogically scaffolded the students by: 1) using prior scientific knowledge to build abstract concepts from simple ones, and 2) providing scenarios that may be experienced by the students. In the enactment of the culture of negotiation, Teacher Carlo used the strategies: 1) offering neutral points of view as prerequisites for integrative negotiation, and 2) converging disparate ideas leading to collective consensus. In the content-based classes, Teacher Don implemented his conceptual-reflective questioning by: 1) questioning using factual-canonical concepts, and 2) extending discussion through reflective inquiry. Finally, using the flexible affirmations of students for collective consensus, Teacher Mara implemented this by: 1) providing reinforcement for a mutually contingent dialogic exercise, and 2) revoicing to increase students backing and enhance their discursive identity.
Results of the analysis point out the possibility of implementing classroom argumentation as a minds-on inquiry process in the Philippine biology education. This is in response to the advocacy for inquiry-based teaching despite the limits posed by the scarcity of resources for hands-on or laboratory-based inquiry teaching practices. With the varying dialogic scaffolding practices of the teachers employed in this study based on their varying levels of knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation, the study recommends professional development (PD) programs that would facilitate the development of the constructivist beliefs of pre-service and in-service education. This would eventually lead them to framing and implementing inquiry-based teaching such as classroom argumentation through their dialogic scaffolding. Implications for pre-service and in-service teachers PDs which aim to maximize the use of language in promoting classroom argumentation with the success of the mother tongue-based-multi-language Education (MTB-MLE) program in the Philippines were discussed. Further recommendations for future related studies were discussed.Table of Contents Contents Page
Dedication ii
Acknowledgement iii
Abstract vi
Table of Contents x
List of Tables xiii
List of Figures xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1. Statement of the Problem 8
1.2. Objectives of the Study 12
1.3. Significance of the Study 13
1.4. Limitations of the Study 15
1.5. Overview of the Dissertation 16
Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Definition of Terms 19
Chapter 3. Review of Related Literature 26
3.1. Dialogic scaffolding argumentation as an inquiry-based approach in science education 27
3.2. Defining a dialogic learning environment . 31
3.3. Scaffolding in science education 35
3.4. Argumentative agency in the current research 37
3.5. Developing students epistemic agency for classroom argumentation 40
3.6. Advantages of classroom argumentation 42
3.7. Developing teachers PCK for argumentation teaching 43
3.8. The secondary school science education in the K to 12 curriculum of the Philippines 45
3.9. Improving the constructivist teaching approaches of science teachers in the Philippines 47
Chapter 4. Methodology 50
4.1. Research design 50
4.2. Sampling and settings of the study 52
4.3. Participants of the Study 54
4.4. Classroom dynamics 57
4.5. Data collection 59
4.5.1. Procedure 59
4.5.2. Instruments 61
4.6. Data analysis and interpretation 65
4.6.1. Analysis and interpretation on the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and implementation strategies for students expressions of argumentative
agency in both the contingency and fading phases 66
4.6.2. Descriptive analysis and interpretation on the teachers knowledge and belief systems on nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation 68
4.6.3. Analysis and interpretation on what and how the students expressed argumentative agency as a response to their teachers dialogic scaffolding practices in both the contingency and fading phases 70
4.7. Establishing the research quality 74
4.8. Ethical considerations 75
Chapter 5. Results and Discussion 77
5.1. Teachers dialogic scaffolding practices 80
5.1.1. Dialogic scaffolding practices and implementation strategies in the contingency phase 80
For the SSI-based implementing teachers 80
Theme 1: Appropriation strategies 81
Theme 2: Enactment of the culture of negotiation 90
For the content-based implementing teachers 97
Theme 3: Conceptual-reflective questioning strategies 98
Theme 4: Flexible affirmations of students ideas for collective consensus 107
5.1.2. Teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and implementation strategies in the fading phases 114
Theme 1: Recognition of students scientific knowledge capitals for the SSI-based implementing teachers 116
Theme 2: Sensitivity to students willingness to participate in the dialogic exchange in the content-based classes 130
5.2. Teachers knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation 144
SSI-based implementing teachers 144
Content-based implementing teachers 154
5.3. Students expressions of argumentative agency in response to their teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and strategies 165
5.3.1. Theme 1: Neutral and immediate application of scientific knowledge in the dialogic response in the contingency phase 168
5.3.2. Theme 2: Use of science concepts, willingness to take part, and recognition of the advantages of turn-taking in the fading phase 190
Chapter 6. Summary and Conclusion 217
Chapter 7. Implications and Recommendations 229
References 234
κ΅λ¬Έμ΄λ‘ 254
Appendices 258
I. Communications 258
II. SNU IRB Approval Sheets 259
III. Sample Research Instruments 267
A. TBTLQ 267
B. TKBAS 268
C. TBTLI 269
D. TDSAOC 270
E. TSCAIG 271Docto
Walton's types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences
UID/FIL/00183/2013
DL 57/2016/CP1453/CT0066Dialogic argumentation has thus far been proposed as a way to analyse, understand, and promote meaningful classroom interactions. However, currently there is a lack of systematic proposals for conceptualising argumentation dialogue goals as part of teachers' pedagogical repertoire. Our main goal is to operationalise an existing framework of argumentation dialogue types, the one proposed by argumentation theorist Douglas Walton. To do so, we first identify a set of epistemic criteria for meaningful, from an argumentation point of view, discursive interactions, which we use as βframing indicatorsβ to enrich Walton's existing typology of four argumentation dialogues (information-seeking, inquiry, discovery, persuasion). We applied the resulting pragmatic framework to teacher-student interactions found in 20 transcripts of both science and social sciences secondary education lessons. We found that affordances for these four types of dialogues were also present in teacher-student discourse, where the implied argumentation goal was not fulfilled. We discuss these findings in terms of the need to be able to identify the dialogic potentiality and accountability within teacher-student interactions so that the argumentative potential of these interactions can be fulfilled, resulting in productive classroom discourse within secondary education classroom settings.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin
THE "POWER" OF TEXT PRODUCTION ACTIVITY IN COLLABORATIVE MODELING : NINE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE A COMPUTER SUPPORTED SITUATION WORK
Language is not a direct translation of a speakerβs or writerβs knowledge or intentions. Various complex processes and strategies are involved in serving the needs of the audience: planning the message, describing some features of a model and not others, organizing an argument, adapting to the knowledge of the reader, meeting linguistic constraints, etc. As a consequence, when communicating about a model, or about knowledge, there is a complex interaction between knowledge and language. In this contribution, we address the question of the role of language in modeling, in the specific case of collaboration over a distance, via electronic exchange of written textual information. What are the problems/dimensions a language user has to deal with when communicating a (mental) model? What is the relationship between the nature of the knowledge to be communicated and linguistic production? What is the relationship between representations and produced text? In what sense can interactive learning systems serve as mediators or as obstacles to these processes
- β¦