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
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
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.
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
RebuttalWarrant
Backing
Because So…
Quality of argumentation
The justification of claims
(Sadler & Fowler, 2006)
Level description
0 No justification & no claim
1 Only claim, no justification
2 Simple justification
3 Complex justification
4 Complex justification & counter warrant
Epistemological Views
Tsai & Liu (2005)
E: Empiricist oriented
M: Mixed
C: Constructivist oriented
Conceptual evolution
Jim’enez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz (2005)
Change
No change
Evolution
Design and Procedure
Subjects
Twenty in-service primary and secondary teachers who studied for a science education master degree in middle Taiwan participated in the study.
Empiricistoriented
MixedConstructivistoriented
Total
Male 2 5 2 9
Female 3 5 3 11
Total 5 10 5 20
We are here !!
Where TAIWAN is
Issue of argumentation
Will you agree the construction of mountain cable car in Yushan national park? Provide your own reason.
Design
E-Learning systemArgumentation: 4 rounds
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Agree Disagree
Issue discuss
4 round argumentation
round description
1 Made their own arguments in mountain cable car issue task first
2 Read two other opposite arguments and respond to their claims
3 Made refinement of their arguments based on two other opposite subjects respond to their claims
4 Made their own final arguments again
Example of argumentation
round Example
1 Made their own arguments in mountain cable car issue task first
1A: I agree, because people can use cable car to take close to the nice scenes…
2 Read 1st oppsite arguments: nature scenic is better than artificial scenic…
1A: I thought P2P is better than a line of trip…
3 Read 2nd oppsite arguments: cable car will destroy nature scenic, extinct of organism
1A: If there is no cable car, the tourists will carry more trash and pollution…
4 Read their guoup’s arguments and discuss their arguments together
1A: I still agree and support to construct the cable car…
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
Codes
Views
Level of
change
Teachers’
assessment
Sources(round)
Causes
5B M Evolution N→N 4environmental protection environmental protection , policy , human
nature
1A E Evolution P→P 4environmental protectionenvironmental protection , education ,
economics
3B M Change N→P 4I disagree constructing cable car…I agree, but must be evaluated by experts
6B M No change N→N
Example of conceptual evolution
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%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 1 2 3 4
Level
%
EMC
0: Level 0; 1: Level 1; 2: Level 2; 3: Level 3; 4: Level 4E: Empiricist-aligned; M: Mixed; C: constructivist-oriented
Findings 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4
Round
Num
ber
Level 0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Findings 3
Findings 4
Conceptual evolution
Number
Change
N→P 2
Evolution
N→N
P→P
3
3
Total 8
Codes ViewsLevel of change
Sources(round)
Causes
5B MEvolutionN→N
4 environmental protection environmental protection , policy , human nature
1A EEvolutionP→P
4environmental protectionenvironmental protection , education , economics
3B MChangeN→P
4I disagree, because environment & non-benefits I agree, but must be evaluated by experts
3A MChangeN→P
4Because environment, I don’t agree…Conditional construction, be evaluated by experts
1C EEvolutionN→N
3pollutionNo cars , no pollution
4A MEvolutionP→P
4environmental protectionenvironmental protection, cable car safety
2D EEvolutionN→N
3 & 4ecologicalecological, Tourism, education
6A CEvolutionP→P
4safetysafety, environmental protection
Before (r 1 & r 2) After (r 3 & r4)
Causes Environmental protection
Non-benefits
Pollution
Safety
Education
Ecological
Environmental protection
Non-benefits
Pollution
Safety
Education
Ecological
Policy
Human nature
Economics
Experts’ opinions
Comparison of causes
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).
Suggestion
Different issuesFurther research on epistemological views
& conceptual evolution.Provide scaffolding in argumentation
Thank you for your attention !!Questions or comments ?