Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

<p>There is an increasing amount of research and practice in relation to socioscientific issues (SSI) in science education. This study reviewed empirical studies evaluating learners' thinking, that is, decision making, informal reasoning, and argumentation regarding SSI, and examined the analytic frameworks used in the studies. A search for relevant articles was conducted mainly in recently published volumes of leading science education journals, resulting in 14 SSI studies being identified. An overview of these studies suggested that the analytic frameworks for learners' thinking on SSI might be broadly divided into three types: content of thinking, form of thinking, and both content and form of thinking. A comparative review of these frameworks revealed the following findings. First, two indicators were used for assessing the content of thinking, specifically the reasoning patterns identified by Sadler et al., and the reasoning mode, for example, scientific-oriented reasoning and social-oriented reasoning. Second, most studies evaluated form of thinking on structure of argument, and tended to value arguments containing counter-arguments or rebuttals. Third, studies analyzing both content and form of thinking were not numerous. Implications for further research were discussed based on the findings of this review. </p>

DOI： 10.14935/jssej.40.353

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.14935/jsser.30.3_77

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.24544/ocu.20171218-098

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

One feature of design-based research is progressive refinement of classroom practice and learning environments through the cycles of design and analysis. In our previous study (Yamamoto et al., 2013), we taught a science unit to fifth graders that dealt with the construction of arguments comprising claim, evidence, and reasoning. Through an analysis of the students' performance after the unit, in this study, classroom practice was revised and its effectiveness was tested. The revisions to the unit were aimed at fostering the transfer of acquired argument skills in line with two design principles: detailed reflection on written arguments and fading scaffolds. One hundred and fourteen fifth graders were taught the revised unit, and then performed two argument tasks. The first argument task required students to write an argument related to the content of the unit after the training. The second argument task, the transfer task, required them to write an argument on other scientific topics which they had learned before. Their performance on these tasks was compared with that of students in the previous study. While students who participated in the revised unit obtained the same scores at the first argument task as students in the baseline unit, they showed more improvement in the transfer task in criteria concerning evidence. More students could justify their claims with both evidence (data) and reasoning (known scientific rationale). These results showed that the two design principles were effective in fostering the transfer of argument skills through the iterant cycles of design and analysis.

DOI： 10.14935/jssej.38.54

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

In recent years, science education has focused on the importance of argument. However, it is noted that even fifth- and sixth-grade elementary school children have difficulty supporting their arguments with reasoning. This study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of a class that incorporates teaching strategies for constructing arguments that are comprised of claims, evidence, and reasoning. In this study, a class was given on "pendulum movement," a unit taught in science education for fifth graders, with the goal of clarifying factors that affect the pendulum period. Four teaching strategies were incorporated into the unit's preparatory phase and eight strategies were incorporated into the unit's implementation phase. In the content knowledge test, both the children's rate of giving correct answers and their degree of confidence both improved significantly compared with having studied the unit. In an argument task concerning the content of the unit, children scored over 80% in all having criteria concerning claims, evidence and reasoning, with the exception of only one criterion. In another argument task given before and after the unit, both of which concerned matters that had already been learned by the children, their arguments showed significant improvement in some criteria concerning evidence and reasoning. Connections in performance were identified between the argument tasks concerning the content of the unit and those concerning matters already learned. These results demonstrate that the class in this study is effective in developing arguments that are specifically comprised of claims, evidence, and reasoning. As a challenge for the future, we will endeavor to resolves the problem of omission of description, often detected in elementary school children's arguments.

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

An argument is an indispensable process in scientific knowledge construction. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of lessons in constructing a sophisticated argument using appropriate and sufficient evidence. 5th-grade pupils were asked to make arguments for the preservation of mass in a science lesson on "dissolution of substances." Four teaching strategies were set up during the unit's preparatory phase and six during the unit's implementation phase. To examine pupils' arguments, a content knowledge test, and two argument tasks concerning the unit content and previously learned content, respectively, were implemented. The average marks for the content knowledge test were very close to full marks. In the former argument task, except in one indicator, more than 90 percent of the pupils scored full marks in claim, evidence (appropriateness/sufficiency), and reasoning. In the latter argument task, pupils' scores significantly improved after the lesson. Furthermore, a correlation between two argument tasks was found. These results demonstrate that the lesson plan implemented in this study was effective in constructing an argument based on appropriate and sufficient evidence. The study also clarified that future research would be needed for improving pupils' awareness of the insufficiency of a piece of evidence or truncated evidence.

DOI： 10.14935/jssej.37.317

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.55.0_11

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

This study aims to identify and categorize the teaching of strategies of argument as proposed in science education studies published in Europe and the US, and to find the design principles that can be used in science education to improve students' argument skills. In recent years, the need to cultivate students' argument skills has been highlighted, and many practical and theoretical research studies on this topic have been conducted. These studies have found that using evidence and constructing well-structured arguments are difficult for students. The development of effective methods of teaching argument is therefore necessary. We derived various teaching strategies from five prior studies which conducted education projects with clear teaching strategies to support students' engagement in written argument, oral argument, and online forms of argument. We analyzed these teaching strategies and identified three design principles: "promoting students' understanding of the value of argument," "explaining the structure of argument and promoting its use," and "encouraging the use of knowledge on the subject in making an argument." These design principles are useful in practical research for the formulation of effective methods to cultivate argument skills in science classes in Japan.

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Science education research on argumentation has increased over the last two decades. This review provides an overview of representative research on students' written argument in science education, and examines analytic frameworks that science educators use to assess the quality of scientific arguments constructed by students. Toulmin's argument pattern has substantially influenced science education research. We first considered Toulmin's argument pattern, and turned our attention to five representative researchers who presented concrete analytic frameworks for written arguments. We discussed the frameworks developed by Linn, Sandoval, McNeill & Krajcik, Kelly, and Zohar, and attempted to discover the common ground to these frameworks. We have organized this review around two issues that seem to be of critical importance to those who study the ways students generate arguments: (1) the structure or complexity of the argument (i.e., the components of an argument) and (2) the content of an argument (i.e., the accuracy or adequacy of the various components in the argument when evaluated from a scientific perspective). It is hoped that this review may contribute to future research on argument by providing a theoretical foundation.

DOI： 10.14935/jssej.36.356

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

The aim of this research was to investigate the level of argument skills among elementary school students in Japan. This study focused on McNeill & Krajcik (2011)'s first variation of argument, which includes claim, evidence (data) and reasoning (scientific principle) as the essential components, and examined the grade difference and gender difference in argument skills. Participants were 139 Grade 5 students and 139 Grade 6 students. Students were presented two questions with observational and experimental data on scientific topics, and asked to write arguments to answer the questions. Students' written arguments were scored out of two according to the presence and scientific accuracy of each component. Most of the students wrote at least one claim for each question, while about half of the students did not write any evidence or reasoning. Moreover, this study found a difference in students' performance between the two questions. Our results also showed that even in the final grade of elementary school, many or most students have not acquired the skill of stating an argument that connects data with claims using scientific principles. Instructions to improve students' argument skills should be designed.

DOI： 10.14935/jssej.36.252

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.14935/jsser.27.1_129

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.20789/jraps.32.1_1

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.24544/ocu.20171218-191

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Publishing type：Book review, literature introduction, etc.   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Meeting report   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Meeting report   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Meeting report   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Meeting report  

Publishing type：Research paper, summary (international conference)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Article, review, commentary, editorial, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.24544/ocu.20171218-084

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.24544/ocu.20171218-144

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.24544/ocu.20171218-175

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Rapid communication, short report, research note, etc. (bulletin of university, research institution)   Kind of work：Single Work  

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Article, review, commentary, editorial, etc. (other)  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

Venue：龍谷大学  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.56.0_392

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.54.0_31

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.54.0_326

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.52.0_400

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.50.0_S36

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.50.0_S82

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.49.0_379

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.48.0_699

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

DOI： 10.20587/pamjaep.48.0_S74

CiNii Article