中国人文社会科学核心期刊

中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)来源期刊

中文核心期刊

Message Board

Respected readers, authors and reviewers, you can add comments to this page on any questions about the contribution, review, editing and publication of this journal. We will give you an answer as soon as possible. Thank you for your support!

Name
E-mail
Phone
Title
Content
Verification Code
Volume 37 Issue 6
Dec.  2019
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Shao Faxian, Hu Weiping, Zhang Huan, Zhang Yanhong, Shou Xin. Sequential Analysis of Classroom Argumentation: The Pupils' Scientific Reasoning[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2019, 37(6): 48-60. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2019.06.005
Citation: Shao Faxian, Hu Weiping, Zhang Huan, Zhang Yanhong, Shou Xin. Sequential Analysis of Classroom Argumentation: The Pupils' Scientific Reasoning[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2019, 37(6): 48-60. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2019.06.005

Sequential Analysis of Classroom Argumentation: The Pupils' Scientific Reasoning

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2019.06.005
  • Publish Date: 2019-11-20
  • Scientific reasoning is an important part of key competencies in science, and scientific argumentation has become an important way to develop students' scientific reasoning. However, some teachers do not know how to carry out high-quality classroom argumentation. In order to find out how classroom argumentation promotes students' scientific reasoning, and examine how teachers' discourse influences students' scientific reasoning, we conducted a sequential analysis of scientific argumentation conversation in science classes in three primary schools. It is found that teachers' explicit implication is more likely to excite students' corresponding reasoning, while multiple and ambiguous questions are more likely to lead to students' lower level of scientific reasoning. In responding to students' scientific reasoning, teachers offered different feedback. The backtracking of the classroom situation revealed that clear but low-level cognitive problems might generate the pseudo-argumentation, while moderate ill-structured problems could develop students' scientific epistemology and in-depth scientific reasoning. Teachers who emphasize both the structure of scientific reasoning and the process of scientific argumentation, and encourage students to pay attention to the reverse viewpoint and refute it can improve the quality of scientific argumentation.
  • loading
  • [1]
    陈向明. (2014).优秀教师在教学中的思维和行动特征探究.教育研究, (5), 128-138. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=49756134
    [2]
    胡卫平. (2016).基于核心素养的科学学业质量测评.中国考试, (8), 23-25. doi:  10.3969/j.issn.1005-8427.2016.08.004
    [3]
    林瑞吉. (1998).序列分析在諮商歷程研究的應用-以兩組諮商個案為例.師大學報:教育類, 43(1), 49-86.
    [4]
    宋歌, 王祖浩. (2018).实践转向的科学论证教学:国际研究新进展.比较教育研究, (7), 59-67. doi:  10.3969/j.issn.1003-7667.2018.07.008
    [5]
    严文法, 胡卫平. (2009).国外青少年科学推理能力研究综述.外国中小学教育, (5), 23-28. doi:  10.3969/j.issn.1007-8495.2009.05.010
    [6]
    袁薇薇, 吴庆麟. (2008).科学思维的心理学探索.心理科学, (4), 956-959. doi:  10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2008.04.045
    [7]
    Bakeman, R., Gottman, J. M.(1997). Observing interaction: an introduction to sequential analysis. New York, NK: Cambridge University Press.
    [8]
    Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [9]
    Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. doi:  10.1002/tea.20446
    [10]
    Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. doi:  10.1002/sce.20420
    [11]
    Duschl, A.R., & Gitomer, H.D. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37-73. doi:  10.1207/s15326977ea0401_2
    [12]
    Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=10.1080/07370008.2012.689383
    [13]
    Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, J.R., & Shemwell, T.J.(2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196. doi:  10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
    [14]
    Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Bakeman, R. (2017). Exploring the utility of sequential analysis in studying informal formative assessment practices. Educational Measurement Issues & Practice, 36(1), 28-38. doi:  10.1111/emip.12143
    [15]
    Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K., &Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: Elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 197-221. doi:  10.1080/10627197.2010.530556
    [16]
    Koerber, S., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., & Nett, U. (2005). Scientific reasoning in young children: Preschoolers' ability to evaluate covariation evidence. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 141-152. doi:  10.1024/1421-0185.64.3.141
    [17]
    Mcneill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=8e6d236a69dfa47d28df726a13215524&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
    [18]
    Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., Macpherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821-846. doi:  10.1002/tea.21316
    [19]
    Schauble, L. (1990).Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49(1), 31-57. doi:  10.1016/0022-0965(90)90048-D
    [20]
    Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. doi:  10.1080/09500690500336957
    [21]
    Tolmie, A. K., Ghazali, Z., & Morris, S. (2016). Children's science learning: A core skills approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 481-497. doi:  10.1111/bjep.12119
    [22]
    Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=da3348729c29dfa7e7ff4c08e793b66a&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Tables(8)

    Article views (213) PDF downloads(1) Cited by()
    Proportional views

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return