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 ?