DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Impact of Reading Framework on College Students' Reflective Thinking in Argumentation-Based General Chemistry Laboratory

논의기반 일반화학실험에서 읽기틀이 대학생의 반성적 사고에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2013.09.16
  • Accepted : 2013.10.25
  • Published : 2013.12.20

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the reading framework on college students' reflective thinking in argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory. A total of 17 first grade college students taking general chemistry laboratory participated in this study, with 7 in the treatment group and the other 10 in the comparative group. For two semesters, a total of 10 argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory programs were applied. The result was shown that the lessons using the reading framework were effective in enhancing the students' reflective thinking. As the study progressed, the treatment group showed more changes toward the high level of reflective thinking than those of the comparative group.

Keywords

Argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory;Reading framework;Reflective thinking;Writing

References

  1. Jeong, M. The Impact of Reading Framework on Logical Structures in Middle School Students' Writing for Reflection. Master Thesis, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea, 2013.
  2. Kim, M. The Effects of Reading Frame-Based Science Writing Heuristic (R-SWH) on the Achievement of Learning, Critical Thinking, and Summary Writing. Master Thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea, 2011.
  3. Park, G. Examining the Impact of Reading Framework on Reflective Thinking in the SWH Approach. Master Thesis, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea, 2012.
  4. Nam, J.; Kwak, K.; Jang, K.; Brian, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education 2008, 28(8), 922.
  5. Hand, B.; Norton-Meier, L.; Staker, J.; Bintz, J. When Science and Literacy Meet in the Secondary Learning Space: Implementing the Scienece Writing Heuristic (SWH); University of Iowa: Iowa City, IA, 2006.
  6. Toulmin, S. E. In The Uses of Argument; Cambridge University Press: 2003.
  7. Heo, E. The Impact of General Chemistry Laboratory Using Reading Frame-Based Science Writing Heuristic Approach on College Students' Reflective Thinking. Ph.D. Dissertation, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea, 2011.
  8. Hatton, N.; Smith, D. Teaching and Teacher Education 1995, 11, 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U
  9. Ho, B. English for Specific Purposes 1997, 16, 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00025-7
  10. Von Wright, J. Learning and Instruction 1992, 2, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(92)90005-7
  11. Wittrock, M. C. Educational Psychologist 1989, 24(4), 345. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2
  12. Yore, L. D.; Craig, M. T.; Maguire, T. O. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1998, 35(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35:1<27::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P
  13. Norris, S. P.; Phillips, L. M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1994, 31, 947. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310909
  14. Mokhtari, K.; Reichard, C. A. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 94(2), 249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
  15. Pressley, M.; Afflerbach, P. P. In Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading; Routledge: 1995.
  16. Anders, P. L.; Guzzetti, B. J. In Literacy Instruction in the Content Areas; Harcourt Brace College Pub.: 1996.
  17. Yore, L. D.; Brian, H.; Vaughan, P. Writing-to-Learn Science: Breakthroughs, Barriers, and Promises; [S.l.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse: 1999.
  18. Raimes, A. In Techniques in Teaching Writing; ERIC: 1983.
  19. Nunan, D. In Second Language Teaching & Learning; ERIC: 1999.
  20. Rivard, L. O. P. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1994, 31(9), 969. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
  21. Mason, L.; Boscolo, P. Instructional Science 2000, 28(3), 199. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003854216687
  22. Alvermann, D. E. The Reading Teacher 1991, 45(2), 92.
  23. Sung, H. The Impact of Reading Framework as a Reading Strategy on Writing for Reflection of Middle School Students. Ph.D. Dissertation, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea, 2011.
  24. Keys, C. W.; Hand, B.; Prain, V.; Collins, S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1999, 36(10), 1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  25. Burke, K.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1032. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1032
  26. Lee, S. International Journal of Educational Technology 1999, 1, 287.
  27. Gilhooly, K. J. In Lines of Thinking; Wiley: Chichester, 1990.
  28. Mokhtari, K.; Reichard, C. A. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 94, 249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
  29. Lee, Y. The Effect of Question-Generation Strategy on Reflection in Web-based Discussion. Ph.D. Dissertation, Korea University, Seoul, Korea, 2006.
  30. Sung, H.; Hwang, S.; Nam, J. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education 2012, 32(6), 146.
  31. Richardson, J. S.; Morgan, R. F.; Fleener, C. E. In Reading to Learn in the Content Areas; Cengage Learning: 2011.
  32. Evensen, D. H.; Hmelo, C. E. In Problem-Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: 2000.
  33. Lin, X.; Hmelo, C.; Kinzer, C. K.; Secules, T. J. Educational Technology Research and Development 1999, 47(3), 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299633
  34. Lin, X.; Lehman, J. D. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1999, 36(7), 837. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<837::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U
  35. Spence, D. J.; Yore, L. D.; Williams, R. L. Journal of Elementary Science Education 1999, 11, 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173836

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국연구재단