1 / 36

Quality and Evolution of Teachers’ Argumentation in Marine Fish Resource Issue

Quality and Evolution of Teachers’ Argumentation in Marine Fish Resource Issue. CHIU, Yu-wen, YU, Shu-mey, HSIAO, Ming-chun, HUANG, Hsin-chiao Graduate Institute of Science Application and Dissemination, National Taichung University R.O.C, Taiwan. Objectives of the study.

chayton
Download Presentation

Quality and Evolution of Teachers’ Argumentation in Marine Fish Resource Issue

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality and Evolution of Teachers’ Argumentation in Marine Fish Resource Issue CHIU, Yu-wen, YU, Shu-mey, HSIAO, Ming-chun, HUANG, Hsin-chiao Graduate Institute of Science Application and Dissemination, National Taichung University R.O.C, Taiwan

  2. Objectives of the study ● the differences of argumentation quality -from different epistemological views -in three rounds -Biology major & Science teaching ● evolution of teachers’ argumentation

  3. Qualifier Data Claim Warrant Rebuttal Backing Theoretical framework ● Toulmin Argumentation Pattern (TAP) （Toulmin, 1958）

  4. ● Sadler and Fowler’s (2006) argumentation quality rubric

  5. ●Evolution of argument - Change - Evolution - No change (Jim’enez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-Munoz , 2005) ● Epistemological views - Empiricist-aligned (E) - Mixed (M) - Constructivist-oriented (C) (Tsai & Liu, 2005)

  6. Design and Procedure

  7. Subjects ●Twenty in-service primary and high school teachers who are studying for a science education master degree in central Taiwan Central Taiwan

  8. Instrument ●Socio-scientific issue “What marine fish resource policyshouldpolicy makers made in order to deal withthe crises of marine fish resource?” Provide your own reason based on your assigned role.

  9. Design ●The task is set in e-learning system ●Teachers are asked to engage in three-round argumentation – Making arguments – Responding others’ arguments and refining arguments – Group discussion in the classroom

  10. Data Collection and Analysis ●Components & Quality of argumentation - Epistemological views - Three Rounds analysis - Biology major & Science teaching ●Evolution of argumentation ● Inter-rater consistency of .90 is achieved

  11. Epistemological views (Tsai & Liu , 2005)

  12. Biology major & Science teaching

  13. Results and Discussion

  14. Arguments of different epistemological views C: claim; D: data; W: warrant; R: rebuttal; Q: qualifier; B: backing E: empiricist-aligned; M: mixed; C: constructivist-oriented

  15. Quality of different epistemological views 0: Level 0; 1: Level 1; 2: Level 2; 3: Level 3; 4: Level 4

  16. Comparison of arguments in three rounds R1: the first round argumentation, R2: the second round argumentation, R3: the third round argumentation

  17. Quality of argumentation in three rounds 0: Level 0; 1: Level 1; 2: Level 2; 3: Level 3; 4: Level 4

  18. Biology Major, Science Teaching BN: Biology major, Science teaching; BN: Biology major, Non-science teaching NS: Non-biology major, Science teaching; NN: Non-biology major, Non-science teaching

  19. Change in teachers’ positions *one have both change and evolution

  20. * one has both change and evolution

  21. Conclusion & Suggestion ●Empiricist-aligned teachers have better quality. ● Teachers have better quality in R2. ● BS have better scores on level 3. ● Constructivist-oriented teachers get more changes.

  22. Thank you for your attention! Questions or comments?

  23. username password enter

  24. Life science argumentation

  25. course interaction

  26. Issue discussion Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Ecologists policy makers fishermen general persons

  27. Deliver a new article number title date author

  28. title contents Additional files confirm cancel

  29. Argumentation Quality Rubric

  30. Change in teachers’ positions

More Related