Transcript Powerpoint Slides - University of Calgary

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
● the differences of argumentation quality
-from different epistemological views
-in three rounds
-Biology major & Science teaching
● evolution of teachers’ argumentation
Theoretical framework
● Toulmin Argumentation Pattern
(TAP) （Toulmin, 1958）
Qualifier
Data
Claim
Warrant
Backing
Rebuttal
●
Sadler and Fowler’s (2006)
argumentation quality rubric
Level
description
0
No justification
1
Justification with no
grounds
2
Justification with
simple grounds
3
Justification with
elaborated grounds
4
Justification with
elaborated grounds
and a counter position
● 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)
Design and Procedure
Subjects
●Twenty in-service primary and high
school teachers who are studying for
a science education master degree in
central Taiwan
Central
Taiwan
Instrument
●Socio-scientific issue
“What marine fish resource policy
should policy makers made in
order to deal with the crises of
marine fish resource?”
Provide your own reason based on
your assigned role.
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
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
Epistemological views (Tsai & Liu , 2005)
Epistemological
views
Subtotal
(N)
E
5
M
10
C
5
Biology major & Science teaching
Biology
major
Science
teaching
Nonscience
teaching
Subtotal
(N)
Nonbiology
major
Subtotal
(N)
3
4
7
9
4
13
12
8
20
Results and Discussion
Arguments of different
epistemological views
70
60
50
E
40
%
M
30
C
20
10
0
C
D
W
R
Q
B
Query
Offtask
Arguments
C: claim; D: data; W: warrant; R: rebuttal; Q: qualifier; B: backing
E: empiricist-aligned; M: mixed; C: constructivist-oriented
Quality of different
epistemological views
60
50
40
E
% 30
M
20
C
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
Quality
0: Level 0; 1: Level 1; 2: Level 2; 3: Level 3; 4: Level 4
Comparison of arguments in three rounds
5
3
R1
R2
R3
2
1
fta
sk
of
er
y
qu
B
Q
R
W
D
0
C
Frequency
4
Arguments
R1: the first round argumentation, R2: the second round argumentation,
R3: the third round argumentation
Quality of argumentation
in three rounds
70
60
50
%
R1
R2
R3
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
Quality
0: Level 0; 1: Level 1; 2: Level 2; 3: Level 3; 4: Level 4
Biology Major, Science Teaching
60
BS
50
40
BN
% 30
NS
20
10
NN
0
0
1
2
3
4
Quality
BN: Biology major, Science teaching; BN: Biology major, Non-science teaching
NS: Non-biology major, Science teaching; NN: Non-biology major, Non-science teaching
Change in teachers’ positions
Level of change
Epistemological view
Subtotal
Change
E
0
(N=4*)
M
1
C
3*
Evolution
E
1
(N=5*)
M
3
C
1*
No change
E
4
(N=12)
M
C
6
2
*one have both change and evolution
Epistemological view
Level of change
Subtotal
E
Change
0
(N=5)
Evolution
1
M
No change
Change
4
1
(N=10)
Evolution
No change
3
6
C
Change
3*
(N=5)
Evolution
No change
* one has both change and evolution
1*
2
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.
Thank you for your attention!
Questions or comments?
username
password
enter
Life science argumentation
course
interaction
Issue discussion
Ecologists
Group 1
policy makers
Group 2
fishermen
Group 3
general persons
Group 4
Deliver a new article
number
title
date
author
title
contents
Additional files
confirm
cancel
Arguments
Description
Example
Claim
Conclusion of that people try to
convince or to build it‘s own
value, often showed in the way of
“I think…” or “I agree…”
I think no matter how, fishery policies in
Taiwan can’t stand alone from international
organizations and agreements.
(3E951227)
Data
Grounds to support the claim.
It’s based on the non-ambiguity
of data format, which can
describe the term of the claim
accuracy.
The main cause of the shortage of the current
fishery resources can be, rather than the inshore sightseeing fishery, inappropriate fishing
techniques with application of modern
technology. (3B951219)
Backing
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have
To explain the data’s theorem.
address a warning to fishing countries: In order
It’s a common theory foundation
to restore the resources, it’s necessary to
and can be understood by the
restrict fishing capacity in the short-term.
people.
(4B951216)
Warrant
To infer Data to claims and
explain the relationship of the
data to the claim. It could be a
rule, a principles, or the base of
inference.
Because it’s “high” price, in other words, it’s
high income for fishermen and food suppliers.
They will strive to catch marine lives for profit.
And then make marine fish and lives to death.
(1D951220)
Qualifiers
It’s used to restrict the claim,
illustrate the intensity of claim
and in which area the claim is
suitable?
Scholars will agree if it’s without pollution and
has a complete set.
(1A960102)
Rebuttal
To illustrate in what situation
the claim can’t be established.
Or having doubts about either
the claim, data, warrant,
backing or qualifier of an
argument.
Raising prices seems to let fishermen even
more want to catch these fish which have
high economical values. Thus they can
increase their income. Raising prices will
decrease some kind of fish rapidly and can’t
ensure to let everyone have fish to eat.
(2A951229)
Query
To address questions to the
claim or arguments. It means
unclear message or
furthermore question.
But what kind of marine lives are rare and
viewable? Is there any clear definition to
tell the people or film and public welfare
advertisement to let people watch? (4B1210)
arguments or data which has
no direct connection with
issue
We indeed have responsibility to care how
we consume global marine resources and
how this influence the environment. Even if
what most people see is a dish of sashimi or
a bowl of shark’s fin on the table. But we
should know that if we don’t control the use
of environmental resources, we or our later
period will get feedback. We have only one
earth and one ocean.
(3E951218)
Offtask
Argumentation Quality Rubric
Score
0
1
2
Description
No justification
Example
Any country in the world include Taiwan is absolutely
hard to get away from a vicious circle which destroys the
environment. Globalization have already existed. What
role should Taiwan play among the closely linked
biosphere, atmosphere, and global ocean current, and
also in the powerful connection with contemporary
technology and economical system?
(3E951218)
Justification with no
grounds
─To conserve marine resources is the government and entire
people’s duty. It’s also the inshore fishing’s prerequisite
conditions to keep sustainable use. ─C
(3B951219)
Justification with
simple grounds
─To establish a special agency to integrate the ocean
management. ─C：─There’re about 7 to 8 ocean-related
departments in Taiwan. Some rights and duties are
overlapping, opposite, or insufficient. To deal with ocean
affairs often lack of communication and coordination.
Besides, it’s time-consuming and achieve little. ─W，So
t’s necessary to establish a special agency.
(2A951222)
3
4
Justification with
elaborated
grounds
─The sea shore zone is an ecological-sensitive area.
Inappropriate developments usually cause serious
environment damages. ─W，─So the environmental
impact statement of coast developments is very
important. ─C。─”Environmental impact statement”
lay emphasis on the “prevention” of environment
protection. So any coast development programs should
be enforced in the term of planning, and on the premise
that protecting inshore fishing to keep sustainable use,
and be considered if it’s practicable. After lifting the
curfew, Taiwan develop rapidly. The sea shore zone,
especially in the west, is developed highly concentrated.
So the policies in the future should not only enforce the
environmental impact statement and also consider the
accumulative impact, that is the accumulation of all
developments or the entire attacks to the environment
after the reciprocal effect. Thus can carry out the true
value of environmental impact statement. ─D。
(2A951222)
Justification with a
counter position
─We should protect marine fish resources to keep
sustainable use and establish correct fisheries control so
as to let the people eat delicious seafood. ─C. ─If we
raise the price of the seafood on the contrary, it’s not
only useless for the present situation, but also a
exploitation to consuming rights and interests. ─R。
(1B951219)
Change in teachers’ positions
Level of
change
role
Epistemological view
change
(N→P)
fisherman
change
(P→N)
source
dimension
C
Group
discussion
Marine resources
protecting area
general
person
M
Paper report
Vegetarianism
change
(N→P)
ecologist
C
Group
discussion
Restrict to catch some
kind of fish
change
(N→P)
fisherman
C
Paper report
Restrict to catch some
kind of fish
Level of
change
role
Epistemolo
-gical view
source
dimension
(P→P)
ecologist
M
E-learning
Marine resources protecting
area → until the environmentclean technique is mature
(P→P)
fisherman
C
Group discussion
sightseeing fishery →mainly on
seafood
(P→P)
fisherman
E
Group discussion
& paper reports
Inshore cultivate fishing &
sightseeing fishery → planned
by the government
(P→P)
ecologist
M
Group discussion
sightseeing fishery →
Consulting other successful
countries, planned and guided
by the government.
(P→P)
policy
maker
M
E-learning
Dig out smuggling → through a
fair and just procedure
Evolution