The Development of Students Argumentation in Science Context

전체 글

(1)Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2004, Vol. 48, No. 1 Printed in the Republic of Korea.

(2)

(3) *

(4) †. †. . (2003. 7. 21

(5) ). †. †. The Development of Students Argumentation in Science Context Soonmin Kang*, Jaihang Lim†, Youngtae Kong †, Jounghee Nam †, and Byoungsoon Choi Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education, Chungbuk 363-791, Korea † Department of Chemistry Education, Pusan National University, Pusan 609-735, Korea (Received July 21, 2003). . CASE ! " #$ % ! & '( )* +,-. /0123. ! &4 ‘56 ! &’ ‘ ! &’7 89: 7;, 3< ! & =>? @AB3. ! & CD E4 FG HI+ J.AK L:7;, MN O? PQ7 ERS "%A T ! UV WXY L:3. Z ‘56 ! &’ => @ 13 ‘ ! &’ => [ \] ^23. CASE ? _` a ‘ ! &’ [ \] E7 b0c7;, dPe fdP \fdP 13 g + h7i )+ jk&AB3. l. T mn ! op &q rs tuU op \] vw7 b27i aU " x y qU ‘ ! &’ op\] b0c3. : [K , l.z{, ! & ABSTRACT. The purpose of this research was to investigate the change of argumentation of middle school students when they participated in argument tasks with CASE(Cognitive acceleration through science education) programs. Students argumentations were divided into two categories; 'explanatory argumentation' and 'dialogic argumentation'. Several argumentation components were used in their argumentation. Among argumentation components, claim and ground took place more than half of argumentation components. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was lower than the percentage of 'explanatory argumentation'. The percentage of 'dialogic argumentation' was getting higher during CASE intervention. CASE programs had more effect on symmetric group than asymmetric group, however it was unstable. In general, participation ratio in argumentation of the formal operational student was high and the ratio in argumentation of the transitional student was getting higher. Keywords: Teaching Thinking, Cognitive Development, Argumentation. ,

(6)

(7) !" # $ %&' ( .” “...... 1. v|7 M4 }~* S .s, [ K UV, K q +. i L3. [K +. 4 k ! E 9'-3. , [K . "; ' .K L vM # $&9U . 2. 3. 85.

(8)

(9) . 86. M ? S )% _ [ Kq )% '¡3 ;, ¢, [K £ #, ¤ #, K ¤? |# E % L UV¥ [K 3n UV S 3¦. §7;, .¨ L3© ª «4 [K UV? ¬ ? L3 3. [K .? 8A 4 ® ¯ 0.¨, De Bono °K± .? MJ ²l ³ \A; Y ³? Ap M J* ÁS µ UV [K UV¶ ·3. 4 °K± .? ª g]7 UAqy £% ¸ ¹º L3K º L3. [K* +¦`» ¼½4 ¾® 0; [K ²? E% 4 ¿E F= }~B3. .± U 8, K& À7 ls9'Á [K À . ¼½ Â Ã"* .ÄABK, $ 7 [K* +¦` 4 T Å9. §2K Æ dP &9'c3(Ç, K È , ÉÊ , ËÌÍM). Yi, ¯D l T [KÀ* E% L pY (Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment; The Somerset 4. Thinking Skills Course; CASE(Cognitive Accerelation through Science Education); The Philosophy for Children; Schools’ Council History 13-16 Project; Thinking through Geography; Activating Approaches to Developing Thinking). ¼z9'c7; ¯ Î&l $ q z ~9:3. Z .± U aD

(10) '© ¤ [K UÏ Â .s? v 9 '( 7 1 X, [Ð Ñ EÒu ? |# K &N t Ó ÊtÔ* |# ¤M # ¹7 Õt9K e3 7 Ö'+U %u×3. Ø' >|? |Ap [Ù k L .Ì Ú &, O Û4 K Ü3 Esl ÝÞ? +.K Lß ‘&1 à Â(information-processing theory)’ Ô

(11) v{ áY3â4 ‘.s? Ø' v{ º L ’7 +&ã D# [K UV E? . A 4 8 [Ð eF µä UD? K L3. [Ð eFMl \Kå z{ ¤ U [E4 ¼¼l +.K L KÈ &N U4 [Ð EÒu? |# æç3 3. .si UV ¤ç? \è éwl ¤4 ²7 Ø'* ê¼ [Ðl EÒu 5. 6. 7. ? |Ap ë'ì3. í0" îr-\îr ¼½ i \Kå H

(12) z{ É¹ ¼½q [Ð EÒ u4 ¤ ï l &7 "k9; ðñ [ K # L' [Ð T &N T7 ò ©* 56A \Kå Ó T [ t * 56A í0" Ó4 EÒu? | z{? #A¸ qó ô L3. [Ð eF UÏ õ4 [ EÒu4 ö¤ = => ÜF 3. [ [ EÒ u? |# [ S &1* "÷AK S MN ¤? E% L UÐ* "÷A;, Y E Òu4 l Ã Ñ? l opM + ç ø Ã Ñ7 )% L ùÀ q+ ô L3. Yi, "q Ñ ò, Æú û i¶ Û4 3l ü Ã Ñ [- Ü EÒ u4 ý* +² þ 3. Æÿ û* "AK Y ¹º û X3. Y¥ ã \ . EÒ u ¹º? K, .%AK m¦;, ²AK º L - EÒu E te4 ª <² EÒu7

(13) L? 3. EÒu? ùt [KÀ E > µ Ã7 I "#$À, ÅÂ, #À ¨ 0¶ ! UV À z {? 1pFK L3. Kuhn4 [K Æ? (Science as exploration)¶U 13 ! (Science as argument)7 56A»K A B3. . Uy 0¶ [Ð EÒu? | ! & .s FG 5 F 3 3. Ç, q l. ! e [K & ; 3n [Ù MN [K* Yò &? |# z{ @zAS ¯'i; U ·AU U, AU, U¨!i = "`* J .AK L3. EÒ Ü ¯'i ! & 4 [Ð ! ò ! [ $ [K z{ ùÀ Pâ? ùtA;, [Ð # û+ ¼l ò $ì9U* ¶ ò [K v% ? ©% R&? "÷3. ! &? 'ã 4 [K ©* =A¸, Y © Ü (© ò (©7 8. 9. 10. 5. 11. 12. 11. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(14) . ? =3. MN O? ©AK MN N½? ..º UÐ+ 3© MN [K* 4 j+A3. Ü EÒu4 ¼½ z{ Î &l g * +,) ¨ 0¶ * F= }~ AK L \+ [K UV? E% 7 1K9:3. l. ! e4 [K & ;, ÷¼l ÅÂ &? |# z{9'.; [K* E% U "# +G g l R&4 ? [K & pº UÐ* MF pA ; P7 ! & @4 pY Â ¼½ # ..,K L3. Yi -G & E ", K [ ls .7 j vw 1% &q þ ! &4 @9. /ã7 ! z{4 R#,K L3. Y ! & z{ &i Mw 80 4 L' -7i ! & ?¤l (© . . Q3. Z Ø'l

(15) Hi ° ! & @ 1 L7i Osborne ·_ “!+ 4 2I >5 Û3” ·q jAK ! & [4 õ 3ë'.. §23. m¶ EÒu? ùt [KÀ E l CASE Æú Ü EÒ u õ4 ¯ * 3&Ap 45A© ! & '( Æ e i°i. ! UV '6S z{# i +. /0123. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

(16) . 7¹% "` pM 28 p9 D? E7 U k CASE Thinking Science EÒu õ4 6¼* 3&Ap 45A© 186 ? µ: 36; 6¼ µ:7 QeAp 45 v ! " Ai, 45 Ü ¼ ! ", K 45 < a Ai "* Ã%AB3. v $ A© => [ ! & L' J I :3. ! " Ã% E 4 [KÀ l. T ý* (&A U "# Chelsea CSMS ? # ¼z 14. 2004, Vol. 48, No. 1. 87. Table 1. Cognitive development levels Piagetian cognitive development levels. Cognitive development levels in SRT. Preoperational stage Concrete operational stage Formal operational stage. 1A, 1B 2A, 2A/2B, 2B, 2B/3A 3A, 3A/3B, 3B. * Ap l. T? (& @ 3¼ µ:4 w tuUi qU #AA e(fdP; symmetric group)A BK, iW. 3¼ µ:4 aU rs tuU 16 w tuUi qU L BpLq y e(\fdP; asymmetric group)AB3. í0" l.z{ T SRT 8 l.z{ T \ Table 1 Û3. 4 ! "+ C D * ,7© 6 "* K E% OA %Ü? +ì @ [ ¼5 MFGS MN O? UVA; ã "* #$# i+qy AB3. [ " E ? H/ #AIi I4 H #A. /º , K qó? J º ¨ DKAK ¯w ! & ¼5A. §23. ! %Ü4 "+ #$ LiIi ª E ! ìv ? M. %Ü "N? . §K Ã%9:3. ! " M¤%Ü, R a, I4 %Ü? Ap Ã%9:7; G> F Ã ë'c3. µO ! &4 PÞ9' v[9:7 ;, [ Q RE ! &? A; 8"U* UyAB3. . ! "4 Shayer Adey # ¼z CSMS 8SÓ Osborne È # ¼ z ! " ¼zÓ HIAp ! " 4D? ¼zAB3. ¼z ! " ¯e? .AU "# CSMS 8SÓ HIAp ÏU rs tu !* =A ¿7 "u9'c7; ! " Ë* +.U "# I +. E 56 "%+ 'ã9',T A Osborne 10+ . ! " ¼zÓ ‘UE, K 56’ Ó HI ¼z9:3. K & VÊAK #$ & 6W H t(well-structured) r ¿7 e9:3. O ¿4 ÜP ² 1U e9'c7; ¿ #* XU "# Yq Û "%9'c3. ¼z ! " SRT(Sicence Reasoning Test) III18. 18. 12.

(17)

(18) . 88. . Fig. 1. A simplified version of Toulmin’s ‘Framework for argumentation’.. v+ 4l7 k© °Aq* Z ,27;, ÿ q µ:? eAp U\ Z[* Ã%, ò? &ö1<Ap [AB3. . ! &4 U7 Toulmin # 9'ì ! & => HIAp 809 'c3. Toulmin ! t A© µ 6¼ ¼ ½ ò. => e9' L¸ FG(claim), HI (data, ground), 1G(warrant) Ul => FG t[ ý* 56A D(rebuttal), 1ù (backing), &(qualifier) 1tl => e9' L3. Toulmin ! & Ó4 Fig. 1 Û3. ! Æe4 U7 ER EÒ ý* \ ] .¨, Toulmin ! t W Æe(monological argument) ùA3. ! & 80? "# û 56 ! & =>(explanatory argumentation components) Toulmin UÓ? [ ABK, EÒu (©? DÉAK L ! & 7 ! & =>(dialogic argumentation components)* ÅÂB3. \y ! "4 H t r e9'c.¨ Toulmin qs4 _ E !q i° L7¥ 80 % ! R " E ` 'iª¶q " #$? " !¶K O9© 80 'ã%a3. Yi " vb E [l ñ#i ¼ll zØ4 80 'ã% . §23. ! &4 M # µ v[9'c 7; M* 'ã v+ 4l µO 8 0 & opAp c # ! & =>? Å ÂB3. CASE 45 mn ! UV z {? de1U "# O ! & =>ÿ [ \] O "ÿ 809' c7; l. Tÿ 56 ! ! [ \] "ÿ 809'c 3. K µ: e mn 56 ! ! [ \]? /01U "# f µ: \f µ: ! & ) Z 809'c3. 19. 20. 21. ! & pY 8 M 4 ! &? S (©7 iK L3. M m¶ [A ' tf; 3¦.¨ W !(monological argument) !(dialogical argument), [ !(rhetorical argument) !(dialogical argument) K ¼l "(individual activity) [Ð "(social activity) i'.K L3. Yi Billig $ !¶ 4 Y ! [ $¶ FGAB7;, Kuhn4 $ [K z{ ùÀ P g? ùtAB3. û Y h? K 4 +. ! "* #$A k # @e9 ìV =>? (©7 i' 80AB3. ij 56 ! &4 MN O? 3n S 5 ç% U "# [ ìV3. 20. 14. 21. 22. 11. )(C; claim): FGA [Ù MN k#* l ú Ai ìV I4 °l ..* ¬U "# ò ® Ai ìV *+(G; ground): FG? qÂU " !I [ Ãi U, M I4 ¼ll k# )(W; warrant): "% HI+ FG? &Aº L &A ,(B; backing): HI 1G 13 ª M M * "÷A .. (Q; qualifier): ! ùq* ~A ìV -.(R; rebuttal): FG , HIi MN ! D9 E&l ! Y ! & =>4 Toulmin Â HI* ] U A.¨ dP ò [ >| EÒ ý * î+AU "# Kempa # ¼z9'ì # 80 %Fm ¼lÜ Ue(interpersonal functionality) (© de P& [ >| => q [e? 1pFK L3. =>4 EÒul Æe ? +.K L7i R EÒ¶U 13 PR l Æe? +.K L3. 3Þ4 ! & => Kuhn4 noM ^p a 3% Úp7 q0+S 9 È •. 23. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(19) . ! & 8014 MN k# &Ae? " ÷A D !* |# 3n [Ù k#* D rA ? c# ! sÍAB7i 8 0 Dr û 0¶ ?¤ (© ìV e² EÒul, Ç tR l û µ* ! & => ÅÂB3.. )/0(QC; Question on Claim): ER FG ² *+/0(QG; Question on Ground): ER HI ² 12-3(SO; Simple Opposition): HI ER k DA ìV *+-3(GO; Ground Opposition): HI* ; E R k DA ìV 45 6 4578(RR; Request and Response): FG ²i HI² " E Ê56i ' 56 È Æ& K ? =AK K A ìV 12 97(SA, Simple Agreement): u4 DK7 E R FGi HI Î&7 DKA ìV ,: 6

(20) :(RE, Reinforcing & Elaboration): E R FGi HI* 1vAIi Ê&Ap Î& 7 DKA ìV ;</0(MQ; Metacognitive Question): ER I4 µ: ! & # 3% OAS A ² ! & z µO ìV4 E ! •. 89. & => wx9' 809'c3..

(21) ! " 1 4M. fdP \fdP [ 9'ì ! & => yq \]4 Table 2 Û3. vw ! & [9'ì ! & => [ \]4 Fig. 2 Û3. ! "* #$# i+ k ìV 50% E4 FG HI ë' c7; 8 56 ! & õ4 %Ü? ºzA B3. Æú ÏU " 6{ HIq FG¨ |'}3+ !* Lò q L:7; 56 ! & MN FG HI* ~,º L 1G, 1ù, &, D È => @4 õ. § 23. û Ã Rs ! &? @ AIi qA r+ 0U ¯ 3. . Fig. 2. The percentage distribution of the argumentation components.. Table 2. Frequency of the argumentation components Argumentation components*2 Explanatory argumentation components Frequency(percentage) Task group*1. C. G. W. B. Q. Dialogic argumentation components Frequency(percentage) R. QC. QG. SO. GO. RR. SA. RE. MQ. 1. Sy 38(60.3) 17(27.0) 4(6.3) 3(4.8) 0(0.0) 1(1.6) 4(14.8) 1(3.7) 5(18.5) 5(18.5 5(18.5) 6(22.2) 0(0.0) Asy 35(50.7) 16(23.2) 2(2.9) 1(1.4) 14(20.3) 1(1.4) 8(25.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 7(21.9) 9(28.1) 7(21.9) 0(0.0). 1(3.7) 1(3.1). 2. Sy 47(68.1) 15(21.7) 0(0.0) 3(4.3) Asy 31(54.4) 18(31.6) 3(5.3) 4(7.0). 3. Sy 13(33.3) 17(43.6) 2(5.1) 5(12.8) 2(5.1) 0(0.0) 8(18.6) 0(0.0) 2(4.7) 12(27.9) 9(20.9) 4(9.3) 2(4.7) 6(14.0) Asy 21(36.2) 22(37.9) 6(10.3) 4(6.9) 4(6.9) 1(1.7) 2(5.9) 2(5.9) 2(5.9) 8(23.5) 10(29.4) 2(5.9) 4(11.8) 4(11.8). 4. Sy 35(50.0) 26(37.1) 3(4.3) 6(8.6) Asy 32(52.5) 24(38.2) 2(3.8) 3(6.9). 2(2.9) 2(2.9) 13(31.0) 0(0.0) 2(4.8) 5(11.9) 9(21.4) 6(14.3) 1(2.4) 6(14.3) 1(1.8) 0(0.0) 7(23.3) 0(0.0) 1(4.2) 4(12.5) 5(19.4) 4(13.9) 2(4.2) 7(18.1). 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 9(19.6) 1(2.2) 2(4.3) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 3(12.8) 0(0.0) 0(0.0). 3(6.5) 16(34.8) 9(19.6) 4(8.7) 2(4.3) 2(4.2) 21(43.8) 4(8.3) 7(14.6) 11(22.9). *1 Sy: symmetric group, Asy: Asymmetric group, *2 C: claim G: ground W: warrant B: backing Q: qualifier R: rebuttal QC: question on claim QG: question on ground SO: simple opposition GO: ground opposition RR: request and response SA: simple agreement RE: reinforcing and elaboration MQ: metacognitive question 2004, Vol. 48, No. 1.

(22)

(23) . 90. 4 MN FG? ÜPú ìVA¸ ' &q ´ # 1i FG? 3n [ÙS !7 5ç % ¸ Á. §4 Û3. ! & \] Z b. §4¸ ¹% 3n O? ¸ Á. §4 Ã * DÉA K L3K 1pì3.. ! & ï=e ! õ L' -.¨ ¤ R&7 ! & µä q54 õ. §23. Sunal È4 ! UV z{? " ¤ v%7 Shayer Adey # ¼z CASE Thinking Science +e? Ø üAB3. S Thinking Science 6¼* _À k [A ! & => '6S )A. 80AB3. O "ÿ ! & => [ \] ) Fig. 3 i°ò:3. " 14 Thinking Science _`9U v7 4 vw ìV N 70%* 56 ! & => ºzAB3. Thinking Science ? _À k Ã% ! " 56 ! & => [ \]4 2'K ! & => [ \]4 +AB3. Yi " 4 +] D i°7i " %U + U·:K, "+ =A l. T4 rs tu ! v ¯×7i "+ u4 " 2¼ ë'cU l Û3. Y $ CASE ! UV E? " q +e ? %3. µ:ÿ ! & => )* de1© Thinking Science _` v " 1 f dPi \fdPi ! & => [ \ ]4 I \AB3. Yi _` Ü ! "* Ã% $ , fdP û 56 ! & ! & => ) \fdP 13 ; " 3 û fdP ú» ! & => @ \] ª ì ? 1 L3. \fdP û )]4 fdP13 7 i " 4q Tú 56 ! & => \] 4 '.K LK ! & => \]4 b0 .K L3. '( r µ:¶q CASE g i°iK L7i fdP û PU l g .¨ k&. / D© \fdP 24. Fig. 3. The percentage distribution of the argumentation components in the two types of argumentation: explanatory and dialogic argumentation.. û g + S i°i.¨ k&l 7 i°3.. O ? l. Tÿ " m¶ '( ! & =>? õ [A. 80Ap 123. Fig. 4 Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(24) . 91. Fig. 4. The percentage distribution of the argumentation components of each student by cognit.. 56, ! & => K vw ! & => O "ÿ [ \]? i°òK L3. 2B 2B/3A 4 aUw tuU qU L 7 í0"s l.z{ Pý w tu P ý L ;, 3B 4 aU rs tu À? +.K L 3. ! & op vw 186 2B *A 76, 2B/3A 86, K 3B 36:3. ! "(Task 1) l. T E 5 6 ! & => [ \]4 \AB7i ! & [ \] 3B op+ õ 23. vwl op &q 3B ! & ? FqAK L3. " 2 û 56 ! & = > [ \]4 S )+ 7i ! & => [ \] 2B/3A op+ Y. S |'iK L3. vw7 12? q 2B/3A op]4 3B J* 1pF. §K L 3. Y ) " 3q i°i¸ " 3 vw ! " op]4 3B õ.¨ 2004, Vol. 48, No. 1. ! & op]4 2B/3A õ4 7 i° 3. CASE Thinking Science g + qU L S ª -jAS i°=? 1 pT3. l. T ^4 ! UV L ' )+ :ß Kuhn $ ¯`3. Yi Y ) .4 z{ ) .7 56AU13 ! & op º UÐ "÷ Ãá ¯Dl Ã Ñ DÉ: 3. aU " x y 3B 56 ! & => [ \]4 |'iK L¸ E7 2B/3A ! & op \] b0. U 7 1pì3. vw7 ! & opA \]4 3B " E b27; vwl op] ) + k&:7i aU " x y ! & ¹º? l. T ^4 S ÖF :3. 2B/3A 4 aU " x y ! & opA \] b0c7i 2B û vD7 ! " op] 3n \# j. 14.

(25)

(26) . 92. tAB3. Voss+ FG Û ÅÂ ! UV 4 ¯D À i, K .s HI 3 K 12? 3n l. T \# 2B ! op] jt Ë UE9:7i Thinking Science g Z 2B S S i°i. §23. ! "+ =A T FF #$AU '»® rs tu !* =A; MN13 l. T b4 ã ! & opã7 U ÈÚ q L? 3. w tuU S qó ô L ! " ¼z -Ê Ñ ! & opº L 3< UÐ* "÷º Lqy ¤ v% ¼z3© 2B ! UV Z z{º L? ¶K 3. 25. EÒu * i° L ! & =>* 80AK, Thinking Science ? _À© ! UV '6S )# +.* t[AB3. ! &4 56 ! & ! &7 89' c7; vw 7 56 ! & => [ ! & => [13 õ23. vw ! & CD E4 FG HI+ J.AK L¸ 0Ô MN O? PQ7 ES "%A T ! U V WXY LÞ? / L3. MN O? ! 7 56AK "%º L7; 3n O? F S K E S DrAIi I4 ÒKA UV ¤ç4 ï=A.¨ S +¦ . 03. Yi ! & 4 ÅÂ UV 0¶ ò ¤çq E Êl ç 3 (© ! UV z{4 ï=A3K O3. Thinking Science ? _`* ,4 a ! & [ \] E7 b0c3. Æú fdP \fdP 13 [ \] )+ h7; . " \fdP4 ! & [ \] Tú +AB7i fdP4 ú» 3% Ú>AB3. " Ã% %Ul " "+ +ì Æe 7 1p.¸ fdP û µ w tuU ë', L7 25. ¥ " #$ E m¶ jk& µ¤? 1B3. ! " #$% µ: Qe4 '6S QeA ª g l. 6{ú $Â? ò 7i " l. T rs tu !* =AB7¥ rs tuU 'ã µ: k& )* 1B3. Yi " Æ e m¶ $ {¶² 7 1; ! & õ4 l. T K»+ + ì q Y 1pì3. a µ : Qe " Æe e + ï= A3. l. T mn ! & op] _Þ " rs tuU vw ! & ! & op] b27i Thinking Science _`9© vw ! & pvú r s tuU op] b27i ! & L' qU op] )+ :3. pY $ ! &? ù ! Z g ! = => l&AK L3 (©, ! & UV z{ Thinking Science g + qU S +G 7 O9'ì3. .fM. [K UV? +¦Ù "# ¼z õ4 4 [K & Ô

(27) pA qy AU13 Pú «4 [K+ l. # +¦`¸ Ï? Å:3. Z .s É¹ ò ò æç¨7 [K z{? 56AU '¡3. Ü EÒu 4 ÜI EÒu? xÈ (©7 P% L3. Yi û 80_ +. r E l. z{ EÊ UpM VÊ º LÞ? Oº L3. ! & =>? @ ¾® v% ¼z ? ¤ R& q54 ! UV l. z{ Up* AS ô ¶ O3. 12 23. 26. 15. ! 1. Nisbet, J.; McGuiness, C. Teaching Thinking & Problem Solving, 1990, 12, 12. 2. Balin, S.; Case, R.; Coombs, J. R.; Daniels, L. B. J. Curriculum Studies, 1999, 31, 26. 3. De Bono. de Bono’s Thinking Course. London: BBC Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(28) Books, 1996. 4. Blagg, N.; Ballinger, M.; Gardner, R. Somerset Thinking Skills Course Handbook. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Limited, 1988. 5. McGuinness, C. From Thinking Skills to Thinking Classroom: a review and evaluation of approaches for developing pupils thinking (RR115). London: DfEE, 1999. 6. . , 2001, 2, 1. 7. Mortimer, E.; Scott, P. In Improving science education; Millar, R.; Leach, J.; Osborne, J., Ed.; Open University Press: Buckingham: U.K., 2000. 8. Roth, W. Authentic School Science: Knowing and Learning in Open-inqury Laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1995. 9. Kuhn, D.; Shaw, V.; Felton, M. Cognition and Instruction, 1997, 15, 287. 10. Cazden, C. B. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portmouth: Heinemann, 1988. 11. Kuhn, D. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 1993, 39, 74. 12. Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.; Simon, S.; Monk, M. School Science Review, 2001, 82, 63. 13. Anderson, T.; Howe, C.; Soden, R.; Halliday, J.; Low, J. Instructional Science, 2001, 29, 1. 14. Kuhn, D. Havard Educational Review, 1992, 62, 155. 15. Kuhn, D.; Shaw, V.; Felton, M. Cognition and Instruction, 1997, 15, 287. 16. Osborne, J.; Simon, S.; Enduran, S.; Monk, M. Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Science. Paper presented at the 3rd meeting of the European Science. . 2004, Vol. 48, No. 1. 93. Education Research Association August 22-26, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2001. 17. Adey, P. S. & Shayer, M. Really Raising Standards: cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London. Routledge. 1994. 18. Shayer, M.; Adey, P. S. Towards a Science of Science Teaching. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1981. 19. Toulmin, S. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. 20. Krummheuer, G. In Emergence of Mathematical Meaning; Cobb, P., and Bauersfeld, H. Ed.; Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1995. 21. Driver, R.; Newton, P.; Osborne, J. Science Education, 2000, 84, 2872. 22. Billig, M. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 23. Kempa, R. F. In Curriculum Implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science; Tamir, P., Ed.; Jerusalem: Israel Science Teaching Center, Hebrew University, 1979. 24. Sunal, C. S.; Sunal, D. W.; Tirri. K. Using evidence in scientific reasoning: exploring characteristics of middle school students’ argumentation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, April 10-14, 2001, Seattle, USA, 2001. 25. Voss, J. F.; Means, M. L. Learning and instruction. 1991, 1, 337. 26. Kuhn, D. Science Education, 1993, 77, 319..

(29)

The Development of Students Argumentation in Science Context 

The Development of Students Argumentation in Science Context