1 / 26

Teachers’ Argumentation about Construction of Mountain Cable Car in Yushan National Park Issue

Teachers’ Argumentation about Construction of Mountain Cable Car in Yushan National Park Issue. Hsiao, Ming-chun, Yu, Shu-mey*, Chiu, Yu-wen, Huang, Hsin-chiao Graduate Institute and Department of Science Application and Dissemination, National Taichung University. TAIWAN. Introduction.

natala
Download Presentation

Teachers’ Argumentation about Construction of Mountain Cable Car in Yushan National Park 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. Teachers’ Argumentation about Construction of Mountain Cable Car in Yushan National Park Issue Hsiao, Ming-chun, Yu, Shu-mey*, Chiu, Yu-wen, Huang, Hsin-chiao Graduate Institute and Department of Science Application and Dissemination, National Taichung University TAIWAN

  2. Introduction • What we know vs. How we know • The ability of argumentation = The sense to reality • Teachers must learn how to argue before teach students to argue • Above all, we design the issue about construction of mountain cable car in Yushan national park

  3. Objectives of the study • The quality and the argument situation of teachers’ argumentation about this issue. • The difference of argumentation quality base on three kinds of epistemological views. • The difference of argumentation quality base on four round argumentation experiences. • The situation of teachers’ argumentation conceptual evolution to the issue.

  4. Theoretical framework • Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) (1958) provides a framework for analyzing argument structure and specifies features such as claims, data, warrants, backings, and rebuttals. Data Claim So… Because Warrant Rebuttal Backing

  5. Quality of argumentation • The justification of claims (Sadler & Fowler, 2006)

  6. Epistemological Views • Tsai & Liu (2005) E: Empiricist oriented M: Mixed C: Constructivist oriented

  7. Conceptual evolution • Jim’enez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz (2005) Change No change Evolution

  8. Design and Procedure

  9. Subjects • Twenty in-service primary and secondary teachers who studied for a science education master degree in middle Taiwan participated in the study.

  10. Where TAIWAN is We are here !!

  11. Issue of argumentation Will you agree the construction of mountain cable car in Yushan national park? Provide your own reason.

  12. Design • E-Learning system • Argumentation: 4 rounds

  13. Issue discuss Agree Disagree Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

  14. 4 round argumentation

  15. Example of argumentation

  16. Analysis • Data collected from e-learning system & classroom group discussion • Argument: revised Toulmin’s argument pattern (1958) • Argumentation qualities: Sadler and Fowler’s argumentation quality rubric (2006) • Conceptual evolution: Jimenez & Pereiro(2005) • Inter-rater agreement:0.94

  17. Example of conceptual evolution

  18. Findings 1 236 arguments • 149 of 236 arguments were Data and Warrant about 60% • Rebuttal was about 3.8% 180 quality of argumentation segments • About 50% quality of argumentation were level 2 and level 3 • Level 4 was about 4.0%

  19. Findings 2 0: Level 0; 1: Level 1; 2: Level 2; 3: Level 3; 4: Level 4 E: Empiricist-aligned; M: Mixed; C: constructivist-oriented

  20. Findings 3

  21. Findings 4

  22. Comparison of causes

  23. Conclusion • Argument: there were more data and warrants Quality: there were more L2 & L3 • Subjects with mixed epistemological views provided higher levels of argumentation. • Subjects provided more L4 argumentation in R4 • Subjects’ conceptions evolved from simple arguments (1st & 2nd round) to elaborated arguments (3rd & 4th round).

  24. Suggestion • Different issues • Further research on epistemological views & conceptual evolution. • Provide scaffolding in argumentation

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

More Related