17,529 research outputs found

    Developing Pre-Service Teachers’ Evidence-Based Argumentation skills on Socio-Scientific Issues

    Get PDF
    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

    Get PDF
    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

    Logos, ethos and pathos in balance

    Get PDF

    Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically

    Get PDF
    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 learners’ 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

    Get PDF
    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 – including Desiderius Erasmus, Sir Thomas More and Mark Twain – 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€ μˆ˜μ—…μ—μ„œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜λŠ” κ΅μ‚¬λ“€μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© μ‹€ν–‰κ³Ό ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ ν–‰μœ„μ£Όμ²΄μ„± 탐색

    Get PDF
    ν•™μœ„λ…Όλ¬Έ(박사)--μ„œμšΈλŒ€ν•™κ΅ λŒ€ν•™μ› :μ‚¬λ²”λŒ€ν•™ κ³Όν•™κ΅μœ‘κ³Ό(생물전곡),2019. 8. 김희백.λ³Έ μ—°κ΅¬μ—μ„œλŠ” κ³Όν•™ μˆ˜μ—…μ—μ„œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜λŠ” κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© μ‹€ν–‰κ³Ό μ „λž΅μ„ μ£Όμ œλ³„λ‘œ νƒμƒ‰ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. λŒ€ν™”μ  νƒκ΅¬λŠ” ꡐ사와 학생 μ‚¬μ΄μ˜ μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ„ μš”κ΅¬ν•˜κ³  μžˆμ–΄μ„œ, κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”©μ— λŒ€ν•΄ 학생듀이 λ³΄μ΄λŠ” 논변적 ν–‰μœ„μ£Όμ²΄μ„±μ„ νƒμƒ‰ν•˜λŠ” 것이 ν•„μš”ν•˜λ‹€. λ³Έ μ—°κ΅¬λŠ” μ‘°μž‘μ— μ΄ˆμ μ„ λ‘” νƒκ΅¬ν™œλ™ 및 μ‹€ν—˜ν™œλ™ μˆ˜ν–‰μ΄ μ–΄λ €μš΄ 필리핀 생물 μˆ˜μ—…μ—μ„œ 인지에 μ΄ˆμ μ„ λ‘” 탐ꡬ ꡐ수/ν•™μŠ΅ λ°©λ²•μœΌλ‘œ λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™μ„ ν™œμš©ν•  κ°€λŠ₯성을 νƒμƒ‰ν•˜λŠ”λ° κ·Έ λͺ©μ μ„ 두고 μžˆλ‹€. λ³Έ μ—°κ΅¬μ—μ„œλŠ” ν•„λ¦¬ν•€μ˜ κ³Όν•™ ꡐ사 4λͺ…κ³Ό 그듀이 κ°€λ₯΄μΉ˜λŠ” 학생듀을 μ°Έμ—¬μžλ‘œ ν•˜μ—¬ 질적 사둀 연ꡬ가 μˆ˜ν–‰λ˜μ—ˆλ‹€. 총 20μ°¨μ‹œμ˜ μˆ˜μ—…μ— λŒ€ν•œ λ…Ήν™”, λ…ΉμŒ 전사본을 주된 자료둜 μ‚¬μš©ν•˜μ˜€μœΌλ©°, 반볡적 비ꡐ뢄석법을 μ‚¬μš©ν•˜μ—¬ λ‹΄ν™”μ—μ„œ λ“œλŸ¬λ‚˜λŠ” κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”©κ³Ό ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 논변적 ν–‰μœ„μ£Όμ²΄μ„±μ„ μ°Ύμ•˜λ‹€. λ˜ν•œ 질적 μžλ£Œλ“€μ˜ 타당성을 ν™•λ³΄ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•΄ 섀문쑰사, 곡식 및 비곡식 λ©΄λ‹΄, λΉ„μ°Έμ—¬ κ΄€μ°° 자료λ₯Ό μΆ”κ°€μ μœΌλ‘œ μ‚¬μš©ν•˜μ˜€μœΌλ©°, μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 자료λ₯Ό ν™œμš©ν•˜μ—¬ ꡐ수/ν•™μŠ΅μ˜ λ³Έμ„±, ꡐ싀 λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™μ˜ λ³Έμ„±κ³Ό μž₯점에 λŒ€ν•œ κ΅μ‚¬λ“€μ˜ 지식과 신념을 이해할 수 μžˆμ—ˆλ‹€. 근거이둠의 반볡적 비ꡐ뢄석법을 ν†΅ν•˜μ—¬ 우발적 지원 단계(contingency phase)와 지원 μ†Œλ©Έ 단계(fading phase)μ—μ„œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜λŠ” κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© μ‹€ν–‰ 및 ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 논변적 ν–‰μœ„μ£Όμ²΄μ„±μ„ μ°Ύμ•„λ‚΄μ–΄ λ²”μ£Όν™”ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. 4개 λ°˜μ—μ„œ 각각 5μ°¨μ‹œμ”© 총 20μ°¨μ‹œμ˜ μˆ˜μ—…μ„ λΆ„μ„ν•˜μ—¬ 우발적 지원 λ‹¨κ³„λ‘œλΆ€ν„° 지원 μ†Œλ©Έ λ‹¨κ³„λ‘œ μ΄ν–‰ν•˜λŠ” λ…Όμ˜κ³Όμ •μ„ μ°Ύκ³ , μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ λ“œλŸ¬λ‚˜λŠ” ꡐ사와 학생 κ°„μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ„ λŒ€μ£Όμ œμ™€ μ†Œμ£Όμ œλ‘œ λ²”μ£Όν™”ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. μ„ ν–‰μ—°κ΅¬μ—μ„œ μ œμ‹œλœ 뢄석틀 ν™œμš© 방법과 λ°μ΄ν„°λ‘œλΆ€ν„° κ·€λ‚©μ μœΌλ‘œ μ°Ύμ•„λ‚΄λŠ” 방법을 ν˜Όν•©Β·μ μš©ν•˜μ—¬ 각 μ£Όμ œλ“€μ„ λ„μΆœν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. μ½”λ“œμ²΄κ³„λŠ” ꡐ사와 ν•™μƒμ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ„ μ΄ν•΄ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•΄ λ§Œλ“€μ–΄μ§„ κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ, λŒ€ν™”μ˜ μœ ν˜• 뢄석과 λŒ€ν™”μ—μ„œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜λŠ” μ—­ν•  뢄석에 μ΄ˆμ μ„ λ‘μ—ˆλ‹€. λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”©μ€ ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ ν–‰μœ„μ£Όμ²΄μ„± λ°œν˜„μ„ μœ„ν•΄ ꡐ사가 담화적 μ§€μ›μœΌλ‘œ μ œκ³΅ν•œ 것이닀. 학생듀은 우발적 지원 λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œλŠ” μš”μ²­λœ λ°˜μ‘μ„ 주둜 ν•˜λ©΄μ„œ λŒ€ν™”μ  탐ꡬ에 μ°Έμ—¬ν•˜κ³ μž ν•œ 데 λΉ„ν•΄, 지원 μ†Œλ©Έ λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œλŠ” μš”μ²­λ°›μ§€ μ•Šμ€ λ°˜μ‘μ„ ν•˜λ©΄μ„œ λŒ€ν™”μ  탐ꡬ에 μ°Έμ—¬ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. λ³Έ μ—°κ΅¬λŠ” ꡐ사와 ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ— μ΄ˆμ μ„ 두고 μžˆμ–΄μ„œ, 두 λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜λŠ” κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© ν”„λ‘¬ν”„νŠΈμ™€ ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ λ°˜μ‘μ΄ λͺ¨λ‘ κΈ°λ‘λ˜μ—ˆλ‹€. κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© ν”„λ‘¬ν”„νŠΈλŠ” κ°œλ…μ , 뢄석적, λ°˜μ„±μ μœΌλ‘œ λ²”μ£Όν™”λ˜μ—ˆκ³ , 이듀은 각 λ‹¨κ³„λ³„λ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ 역할을 ν•œλ‹€κ³  λ“œλŸ¬λ‚¬λ‹€. κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ μŠ€μΊν΄λ”©μ€ 우발적 지원 λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œλŠ” 사전 지식 연계 μš”κ΅¬, λ‚΄μš©μ˜ μž¬μš”μ•½ μš”κ΅¬, μˆ˜μ—… 담화에 κΈ°μ—¬ μš”κ΅¬, μ§„μˆ μ˜ μž¬κ΅¬μ„± μš”κ΅¬, μ˜ˆμƒλœ λ°˜μ‘μ„ μœ„ν•œ 힌트 제곡, ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 지속적인 ν† λ‘  μ°Έκ°€λ₯Ό μœ„ν•œ μ±…μž„κ° λΆ€μ—¬ λ“±μ˜ 역할을 ν•œ 데 λΉ„ν•˜μ—¬, 지원 μ†Œλ©Έ λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œλŠ” ν† λ‘  지속을 μœ„ν•œ 지원, ν† λ‘  ν™•μž₯을 μœ„ν•œ ν”„λ‘¬ν”„νŠΈ 제곡, ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ μ—­λŸ‰ ν™•μž₯ 기회 제곡 λ“±μ˜ 역할을 ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. λŒ€ν™”μ  μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ—μ„œ 학생듀이 λ“œλŸ¬λ‚Έ 논변적 ν–‰μœ„μ£Όμ²΄μ„±μ€ 두 λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œ λͺ¨λ‘ 긍정적 역할을 ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. μžμ‹ μ˜ μ£Όμž₯ 제곡과 지지λ₯Ό μœ„ν•œ 좔둠을 ν•˜μ˜€μœΌλ©°, κΈ°μ‘΄ μ£Όμž₯에 λŒ€ν•œ λͺ…λ£Œν™”, 이에 λŒ€ν•œ λ°˜λ°•κ³Ό 평가 κ³Όμ •μ—μ„œ λΉ„νŒμ  사고λ₯Ό λ“œλŸ¬λƒˆλ‹€. 연ꡬ κ²°κ³Όμ—μ„œ 4λͺ…μ˜ κ΅μ‚¬λŠ” λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™ 지원을 μœ„ν•΄ μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© 싀행을 보인 κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚¬λŠ”λ°, μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ μ°¨μ΄λŠ” κ΅μ‚¬λ“€μ˜ ꡐ수/ν•™μŠ΅μ— λŒ€ν•œ 지식과 신념, λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™μ˜ λ³Έμ„±κ³Ό μž₯점에 λŒ€ν•œ 지식과 신념이 λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ μˆ˜μ€€μ„ λ³΄μΈλ‹€λŠ” 것과 관련이 μžˆλ‹€. μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 신념듀은 λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™μ˜ ꡐ수적 μ ‘κ·Ό(SSI 기반 λ˜λŠ” λ‚΄μš© 기반)에 λŒ€ν•œ ν”„λ ˆμ΄λ°μ— 영ν–₯을 λ―Έμ³€κ³ , 더 λ‚˜μ•„κ°€ κ·Έλ“€μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© μ‹€ν–‰κ³Ό μ „λž΅μ— 영ν–₯을 μ£Όμ—ˆλ‹€. ꡐ사가 우발적 지원 λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œ ꡐ수적 접근에 λŒ€ν•œ ν”„λ ˆμ΄λ°κ³Ό κ΄€λ ¨ν•˜μ—¬ μ œμ‹œν•œ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© 싀행은 μ μ ˆν•œ 인식적 싀행을 μœ„ν•œ μ „λž΅ κ΅¬μ‚¬ν•˜κΈ°, ν˜‘μƒ λ¬Έν™” κ΅¬μΆ•ν•˜κΈ°, κ°œλ…μ -λ°˜μ„±μ  μ§ˆλ¬Έν•˜κΈ°, κ³΅λ™μ˜ ν•©μ˜λ₯Ό μœ„ν•΄ ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 아이디어에 μœ μ—°ν•œ μžμ„Έ κ°€μ§€κΈ°λ‘œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚¬λ‹€. 지원 μ†Œλ©Έ λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œλŠ” ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 지식 μžμ› μΈμ‹ν•˜κΈ°, ν•™μƒμ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μƒν˜Έμž‘μš© μ°Έμ—¬ μ˜μ§€μ— λ―Όκ°ν•˜κΈ° λ“±μ˜ μŠ€μΊν΄λ”©μ„ λ³΄μ˜€λ‹€. 각 κ΅μ‚¬λŠ” 우발적 지원 λ‹¨κ³„μ—μ„œ ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 논변적 ν–‰μœ„μ£Όμ²΄μ„± 지원을 μœ„ν•΄ 두 κ°€μ§€μ˜ μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯΄μ§€λ§Œ μ—°κ΄€λœ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© μ „λž΅μ„ μ‚¬μš©ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. ꡐ사 LoidaλŠ” SSI 기반 μˆ˜μ—…μ—μ„œ μ μ ˆν•œ 인식적 싀행을 μœ„ν•œ μ „λž΅μ„ κ΅¬μ‚¬ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ 1) ν•™μƒλ“€λ‘œ ν•˜μ—¬κΈˆ 사전 κ³Όν•™ 지식을 μ‚¬μš©ν•˜μ—¬ λ‹¨μˆœν•œ κ°œλ…μœΌλ‘œλΆ€ν„° 좔상적인 κ°œλ…μ„ κ΅¬μ„±ν•˜λ„λ‘ ν•˜μ˜€κ³ , 2) 그듀이 μ‹€μ œλ‘œ κ²½ν—˜ν–ˆμŒμ§ν•œ μ‹œλ‚˜λ¦¬μ˜€λ₯Ό μ œκ³΅ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. ꡐ사 CarloλŠ” ν˜‘μƒ λ¬Έν™” ꡬ좕을 μœ„ν•΄ 1) 쀑립적 관점을 μ œκ³΅ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ 톡합 λ°©ν–₯의 ν˜‘μƒμ΄ 이루어지도둝 ν•˜μ˜€κ³ , 2) 이질적 아이디어λ₯Ό μˆ˜λ ΄μ‹œμΌœ κ³΅λ™μ˜ ν•©μ˜λ₯Ό μ΄λŒμ–΄λ‚΄μ—ˆλ‹€. ꡐ사 Don은 λ‚΄μš© 기반 μˆ˜μ—…μ—μ„œ 1) 사싀적인 μ •κ·œ κ°œλ…μ„ μ΄μš©ν•œ μ§ˆλ¬Έν•˜κΈ°, 2) λ°˜μ„±μ  탐ꡬλ₯Ό ν†΅ν•œ λ…Όμ˜ ν™•μž₯ν•˜κΈ°λ₯Ό μ‹€ν–‰ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ κ°œλ…μ -λ°˜μ„±μ  질문의 μŠ€μΊν΄λ”©μ„ λ“œλŸ¬λƒˆλ‹€. λ§ˆμ§€λ§‰μœΌλ‘œ, κ³΅λ™μ˜ ν•©μ˜λ₯Ό μœ„ν•΄ ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 아이디어에 μœ μ—°ν•œ μžμ„Έ 가지기λ₯Ό 보인 ꡐ사 MariaλŠ” 1) λŒ€ν™”μ  μ‹€ν–‰μ—μ„œ 우발적 지원을 κ°•ν™”ν•˜μ˜€κ³ , 2) ν•™μƒλ“€μ˜ 지지 증가와 μ΄λ“€μ˜ 담화적 정체성 증진을 μ‘°μœ¨ν•˜μ˜€λ‹€. 뢄석 κ²°κ³ΌλŠ” ν•„λ¦¬ν•€μ˜ κ³Όν•™ μˆ˜μ—…μ—μ„œ λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™μ„ 톡해 인지에 μ΄ˆμ μ„ λ‘” νƒκ΅¬ν•™μŠ΅μ΄ κ°€λŠ₯함을 보여쀀닀. μ‘°μž‘μ— μ΄ˆμ μ„ λ‘” νƒκ΅¬ν™œλ™ 및 μ‹€ν—˜ 기반 탐ꡬ ν™œλ™ μˆ˜ν–‰μ΄ μ œν•œμ μΈ 필리핀 ꡐ싀 ν™˜κ²½μ—μ„œ 탐ꡬ 기반 ꡐ윑의 긍정적인 λŒ€μ•ˆμ„ μ œκ³΅ν•œ 연ꡬ라 ν•˜κ² λ‹€. κ΅μ‚¬μ˜ λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”© 싀행이 κ·Έλ“€μ˜ ꡐ수/ν•™μŠ΅μ˜ λ³Έμ„±, ꡐ싀 λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™μ˜ λ³Έμ„±κ³Ό μž₯점에 λŒ€ν•œ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ μˆ˜μ€€μ˜ 지식/신념과 κ΄€λ ¨λ˜μ—ˆλ‹€λŠ” 결과둜 λ³Ό λ•Œ, μ˜ˆλΉ„ ꡐ사와 ν˜„μ§ κ΅μ‚¬λ“€μ˜ κ΅¬μ„±μ£Όμ˜μ  신념을 κ³„λ°œμ‹œν‚¬ 수 μžˆλŠ” ꡐ사 μ „λ¬Έμ„± ν–₯상(PD) ν”„λ‘œκ·Έλž¨μ΄ μš”κ΅¬λœλ‹€. μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ ν”„λ‘œκ·Έλž¨μ€ κ΅μ‚¬λ“€λ‘œ ν•˜μ—¬κΈˆ 탐ꡬ 기반 κ΅μˆ˜μ— λŒ€ν•œ ν”„λ ˆμ΄λ°μ„ 갖도둝 ν•˜κ³  λŒ€ν™”μ  μŠ€μΊν΄λ”©μ„ ν†΅ν•˜μ—¬ λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™κ³Ό 같은 탐ꡬ 기반 ꡐ수 싀행을 ν•  수 μžˆλ„λ‘ λ„μšΈ 것이닀. λ˜ν•œ, μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ ꡐ사 μ „λ¬Έμ„± ν–₯상 ν”„λ‘œκ·Έλž¨μ΄ λͺ¨κ΅­μ–΄ 기반 λ‹€μ–Έμ–΄ ꡐ윑(MTB-MLE) ν”„λ‘œκ·Έλž¨μ˜ 성곡과 ν•¨κ»˜ λ…Όλ³€ν™œλ™ 촉진을 μœ„ν•œ μ–Έμ–΄ μ‚¬μš© κ·ΉλŒ€ν™”μ— κ·Έ λͺ©μ μ„ λ‘λŠ”λ° λŒ€ν•΄ ν•¨μ˜λ₯Ό μ œκ³΅ν•˜κ³ , 좔가적인 후속 연ꡬλ₯Ό μ œμ•ˆν•˜μ˜€λ‹€.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 ꡭ문초둝 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

    Get PDF
    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 β€˜framing indicators’ 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

    Get PDF
    Language is not a direct translation of a speaker’s or writer’s 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
    • …
    corecore