Argument analysis and knowledge construction of whole-class discussion in the scientific classroom at elementary school

• Main Authors: Yi-jeng Tsai, 蔡怡錚
• Other Authors: Jer-Yann Lin
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2005
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/61093803437490652320

碩士 === 國立臺南大學 === 自然科學教育學系碩士班 === 93 === This research aims to understand the types of students’ scientific arguments, the ways to rebut others’arguments, the responds to others’ counterarguments, the episteme, and the influences of teacher’s authority in whole-class discussion. This qualitative investigation has been　employed in this study. The subjects of research were a science teacher and her 34 fifth grade’s students in a class at an elementary school in Kaohsiung city. The data were collected by the method of classroom observation and in-depth interviews with teacher and students. After analysis of the data, the conclusions of this research are as follows: 1. The students’scientific arguments often lack the data and warrant to support their claims. 2. The science teacher mostly brings the facts or warrant of claims to rebut the arguments of students. 3. The students mostly offer different claims to rebut the arguments proposed by other students. 4. The students may either disregard or accept others’ counterarguments. 5. The episteme understanding for whole-class discussion is achieved by the approach of analyzing the discursive formations of discourse in scientific classroom. 6. The science teacher frequently gives the supplements to state students’ scientific arguments in whole-class discussion. 7. The roles of science teacher in whole-class discussion are “the person of proposing the issues, “the person dominating who to speak”, “the person of judging rebutments of students”, and “the person of knowledge instruction”. 8. In whole-class discussion, three ways of teacher''s authority were involved in the construction of scientific knowledge: (1) To induce scientific arguments in order to construct scientific knowledge. (2) To judge that which scientific arguments of students becoming scientific knowledge is rational by proposing the facts or warrants. (3) To directly convert the science teacher''s arguments to scientific knowledge. According to the conclusions of this research, suggestions for instruction and future researches are as follows: Instruction：Science teachers should offer the knowledge base concerning the issues, and use scientific learning journals to help students propose their views. Science teacher should have open mind, and adopt the multiple teaching skills to promote discussion. Science teacher''s role should change elastically and multiply depending on the instruction context. Future Research：The types of fallacious scientific argument and the phenomenon of knowledge procrastination are valuable for further research in the future.