Examining the Relation Between Students' Reflective Thinking and the Reading Framework in the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach

탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동에서 학생들의 반성적 사고와 읽기틀의 관계에 대한 고찰

  • Received : 2011.10.17
  • Accepted : 2012.02.16
  • Published : 2012.02.29


The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between students' reflective thinking and providing the reading framework in implementation of argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Participants of this study were 60 $8^{th}$ grade students (two classes). One class (31 students) was assigned to an experimental group and the other class (29 students) was assigned to a comparative group. For the experimental group, five activities using the reading framework with SWH writing template were implemented, while three activities using the reading framework with the SWH writing template and two SWH activities without the reading framework were implemented for the comparative group. The result of this study showed that there was no significant difference in students' reflective thinking between both groups. However, results indicated that providing the reading framework with SWH approach facilitated students' reflective thinking. Therefore, the findings show that providing the reading framework consistently in the SWH approach was effective when it came to facilitating students' reflective thinking.


Supported by : 한국연구재단


  1. 길현정(2010). 학습도구로써 과학글쓰기가 과학학습에 미치는 효과. 부산대학교 박사학위 논문.
  2. 김미정(2011). 전략적 읽기틀을 이용한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기가 중학생들의 학업성취도와 비판적 사고력 및 요약 글쓰기에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 석사학위 논문.
  3. 김성은(2005). 담화 구조 학습이 읽기에 미치는 영향: 설명적 텍스트를 중심으로. 이화여자대학교 석사학위 논문.
  4. 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Brian Hand (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학글쓰기의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936.
  5. 이강님(2007). 구성주의 학습전략이 중학생의 과학 개념학습과 과학적 태도에 미치는 영향 -과학 글쓰기 중심으로-. 전북대학교 박사학위 논문.
  6. 이영미(2006). 웹 기반 토론에서 반성적 사고 능력 촉진을 위한 질문생성 전략의 적용 효과. 고려대학교 박사학위 논문.
  7. 허은아(2011). 읽기틀을 이용한 탐구적 일반화학 실험이 대학생의 반성적 사고에 미치는 영향. 부산대학교 박사학위 논문.
  8. Alvermann, D. E. (1991). The discussion web: A graphic aid for learning across the curriculum. Reading Teacher, 45(2), 92-99.
  9. Butler, D. R. (1995). Zoogeomorphology : animals as geomorphic agents. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Dole, J. A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L. R. & Pearson, D. P. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Education Research, 61(2), 239-264.
  11. Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 547-559.
  12. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
  13. Gaskins, I. W., & Guthrie, J. T. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1039-1056.
  14. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2006). When science and literacy meet in the secondary learning space: Implementing the science writing heuristic (SWH). University of Iowa.
  15. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science : The critical role of argument in student inquiry, grades 5-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
  16. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
  17. Holden, T. G., & Yore, L. D. (1996). Relationships among prior conceptual knowledge, metacognitive awareness, metacognitive self-management, cognitive style, perception-judgment style, attitude toward school science, self-regulation, and science achievement in grades 6-7 students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO, March 31-April 3.
  18. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prian, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  19. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
  20. Massey, D. D., & Heafner, T. L. (2004). Promoting reading comprehension in social studies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26-40.
  21. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
  22. Newton, P., Driver, P., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
  23. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Free Press.
  24. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  25. Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A. & Kurita, J. A., (1989). Strategies that improve children's memory and comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 332.
  26. Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. F., & Fleener, C. E. (2009). Reading to learn in the content areas, 7th ed. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.
  27. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  28. Spence, D. J., & Yore, L. D. (1995). Explicit science reading instruction in grade 7: Metacognitive awareness, metacognitive self-management and science reading comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching , Sanfrancisco, CA, April 22-25.
  29. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham [England] ; Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  30. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376.
  31. Yore, L. D., Shymansky, J. A., Henriques, L., Chidsey, J. L., & Lewis, J. O. (1997). Reading-to-learn and writing-to-learn science activities for the elementary school classroom. AETS Conference Proceedings.

Cited by

  1. Characteristics of Middle School Students' Open-Inquiry Report and Their Perceptions of Conducting Inquiry vol.56, pp.3, 2012,
  2. The Impact of Reading Framework on College Students' Reflective Thinking in Argumentation-Based General Chemistry Laboratory vol.57, pp.6, 2013,
  3. Trends in Research Studies on Scientific Argument and Writing in Korea vol.34, pp.2, 2014,
  4. Investigating the Cognitive Process of a Student's Modeling on a Modeling-Emphasized Argument-Based General Chemistry Experiment vol.35, pp.2, 2015,
  5. Analysis of Argumentation in Middle School Science Classroom Using Argument-Based Inquiry vol.59, pp.1, 2015,
  6. Pre-Service Chemistry Teacher's Designing and Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Instruction that Emphasizes Argumentation and Writing: Focus on Ways to Overcome Difficulties vol.60, pp.5, 2016,