Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Linguistic Characteristics of Middle School Students' Writing on Earth Science Themes Through Analysis of Its Genre and Register

장르와 레지스터 분석에서 나타난 중학생의 지구과학 주제 글쓰기의 언어적 특징

  • Cha, Hyun-Jung (Department of Earth Science Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Chan-Jong (Department of Earth Science Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Maeng, Seung-Ho (Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Pennsylvania State University)
  • Received : 2010.12.02
  • Accepted : 2011.02.13
  • Published : 2011.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The study investigated the linguistic characteristics of middle school students' writing on the themes of earth science through analysis of its genre and register. Data for analysis included $7^{th}$ grade and $9^{th}$ grade students' writings about 'global warming' and 'classification of rocks'. The results of this study include: First, many students were not accustomed to writing in genre, especially exposition genre. Second, in terms of ideational meaning, the material verbs representing action or doing were more dominant than relational verbs that are related to the attribute or definition of things, and additional logical relations were predominant. Third, regarding interpersonal meaning, agents, emotions, subjective opinions appeared in the writings and students did not express their ideas conclusively and revealed feelings of doubt and uncertainty about their knowledge. Fourth, as for textual meaning, most students listed fragments of information using additional conjunctions in simple structures and were not accustomed to writing texts with organizing structures, logical patterns, cohesion, and coherence. From these results, we argued that the scientific writings should be emphasized in science learning that aims to foster scientific literacy. In addition, we discussed the necessity of improving science teachers' perceptions on scientific writing as well as setting up a specific plan in the national curriculum.

이 연구에서는 장르 분석 및 레지스터 분석을 통해 중학생들의 지구과학 주제 글쓰기의 언어적 특징을 분석하였다. 연구 자료는 7, 9학년 학생들을 대상으로 '지구 온난화'와 '암석의 분류' 주제 글쓰기를 실시하여 얻은 학생들의 글쓰기를 대상으로 하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 학생들은 장르별 글쓰기에 익숙하지 않았으며 특히 논설장르 글쓰기에 많은 어려움을 보였다. 둘째, 내용과 논리관계의 특징으로 정의나 분류와 같이 한 부분을 다른 부분과 관련시키는 관계적 술어보다는 행동 및 하는 것을 의미하는 현상적 술어와 부가적 논리 관계가 많이 나타났다. 셋째, 상호관계적 표현의 특징으로 글 속에서 글의 주체, 글쓴이의 감정, 주관적 의견들이 많이 드러났으며, 학생들은 자신의 생각에 대해서 확신을 가지지 못하고 불확실성을 드러내었다. 넷째, 텍스트 구성의 특징으로 대부분의 학생들이 부가 접속사를 통해 단편적인 정보들을 나열하였으며, 체계적이며 논리적인 글을 쓰는데 익숙하지 않았다. 연구 결과를 바탕으로 과학적 소양의 함양을 목표로 하는 과학 학습에서 과학 글쓰기가 강조되어야 하며 국가 교육과정차원에서 체계적인 계획뿐만 아니라 과학 글쓰기에 대한 교사들의 인식이 향상되어야 함을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 곽영순, 김주훈, 2003, 좋은 수업에 대한 질적 연구: 중등과학 수업을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 23, 144-154.
  2. 교육인적자원부, 2007, 과학과 교육과정. 교육인적자원부고시 제2007-79호, 89 p.
  3. 김희경, 강태욱, 송진웅, 2003, 7차 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교과서 물리단원 실험의 특징. 새물리, 47, 387-394.
  4. 남경운, 이봉우, 이성묵, 2004, 과학일기쓰기가 과학영재의 과학에 관련된 정의적 특성에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 24, 1272-1282.
  5. 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, 2008, 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28, 922-936.
  6. 맹승호, 2008, 수업 담화 장르에 기반한 광물과 암석 단원 과학 수업의 양태 변화: 담화 리지스터와 언어 코드적 접근. 서울대학교 박사학위 논문, 308 p.
  7. 맹승호, 신명환, 차현정, 함석진, 신현정, 김찬종, 2010, 지구과학 논문의 언어 특성 이해: 레지스터 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 31, 785-797. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2010.31.7.785
  8. 박지영, 신영준, 2008, 초등학교 학생들의 과학 글쓰기 선호 유형 조사-생명 영역을 중심으로. 한국생물교육학회지, 36, 600-609.
  9. 박희진, 권난주, 2008, 초등학생의 과학일기 유형 분석 및 일기 쓰기의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 28, 519-526.
  10. 신미영, 최승언, 2008, 8학년 학생들의 탐구 보고서에 나타난 과학방법의 특징. 한국지구과학회지, 29, 341-351. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2008.29.4.341
  11. 심재호, 신명경, 이선경, 2010, 2007년 개정 과학과 교육과정의 주요 내용의 실행에 관한 과학 교사의 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 30, 140-156.
  12. 이미경, 손원숙, 노언경, 2007, PISA 2006 결과 분석 연구 -과학적 소양, 읽기 소양, 수학적 소양 수준 및 배경 변인 분석-. 한국교육과정평가원, 연구보고 RRE 2007-1, 344 p.
  13. 이호진, 최경희, 2004, 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 초등학생들의 선행개념 및 오개념. 교과교육학연구, 8, 421-435.
  14. 정혁, 정용재, 송진웅, 2004, 빛을 주제로 한 11학년 학생의 과제 유형에 따른 글쓰기 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 24, 1008-1017.
  15. Airasian, P.W. and Walsh, M.E., 1997, Constructivist cautious. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.
  16. Bazerman, C., 1988, Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, USA, 356 p.
  17. Christie, F., 2002, Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. Continuum, NY, USA, 196 p.
  18. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J., 2000, Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  19. Eggins, S., 2004, An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. Continuum, London, UK, 384 p.
  20. Fang, Z., 2005, Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050
  21. Fang, Z., 2006, The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339092
  22. Fellows, N.J., 1994, A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 985-1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310911
  23. Gallavan, N.P., Bowles, F.A., and Young, C.T., 2007, Learning to write and writing to learn: Insights from teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 29, 61-69.
  24. Gee, J.P., 2005, An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge, NY, USA, 209 p.
  25. Glynn, S.M. and Muth, K.D., 1994, Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057-1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915
  26. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., 2004, An introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold, London, UK, 689 p.
  27. Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R., 1993, Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, USA, 283 p.
  28. Holliday, W.G., Yore, L.D., and Alvermann, D.E., 1994, The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-893. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310905
  29. Kearsey, J. and Turner S., 1999, The value of bilingualism in pupils' understanding of scientific language. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1037-1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290174
  30. Kelly, G.J. and Bazerman, C., 2003, How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 28-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.28
  31. Kelly, G.J., Chen, C., and Prothero, W., 2000, The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691-718. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<691::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-G
  32. Keys, C.W., 1994, The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1003-1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310912
  33. Keys, C.W., 1999, Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1044-1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1044::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J
  34. Lemke, J.L., 1990, Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation, NJ, USA, 261 p.
  35. Martin, J.R., 1997, Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In Christie, F. and Martin, J.R. (eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. Continuum, NY, USA, 161-195.
  36. Martin, J.R., 2009, Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003
  37. Martin, J.R. and Rose, D., 2003, Working with discourse:Meaning beyond the clause. Continuum, London, UK, 293 p.
  38. Moje, E.B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., and Marx, R.W., 2001, “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469-498. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1014
  39. Newton, P., Driver, R., and Osborne, J., 1999, The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  40. Norris, S.P. and Phillips, L.M., 2003, How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  41. Osborne, J., Erduron, S., and Simon, S., 2004, Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  42. Peker, D. and Wallace, C.S., 2011, Characterizing high school students’ written explanations in biology laboratories. Research in Science Education, 41, 169-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9151-z
  43. Rivard, L.P., 1994, A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
  44. Roth, W.M. and Barton, A.C., 2004, Rethinking scientific literacy. RoutledgeFalmer, NY, USA, 227 p.
  45. Schleppegrell, M.J., 2004, The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, USA, 190 p.
  46. Shin, H.J., Ham, S.J., Cha, H.J., Maeng, S.H., Shin, M.H., and Kim, C.J., 2009, Genre analysis of texts in science textbooks and science treatises as a starting point of teaching scientific writing. International Conference of East-Asian Science Education, p. 151.
  47. The Ministry of Education, 2007, The New Zealand curriculum: Achievement objectives by learning area. Learning Media Limited, Wellington, New Zealand, 30 p.
  48. Unsworth, L., 1999, Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history text: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 508-521.
  49. Veel, R., 1997, Learning how to mean scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In Christie, F. and Martin, J.R. (eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. Continuum, NY, USA, 161-195.
  50. Vygotsky, L.S., 1981, The instrumental method in psychology. In Wertsch, J.V. (ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology. M.E. Sharpe, NY, USA, 134-143.
  51. Wellington, J. and Ireson, R., 2008, Science learning, science teaching. Routledge, London, UK, 351 p.
  52. Wellington, J. and Osborne, J., 2001, Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, 152 p.
  53. Wells, C.G., 1999, Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 392 p.
  54. Westby, C. and Torres-Valasquez, D., 2000, Developing scientific literacy: A sociocultural approach. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100205
  55. Young, R.F. and Nguyen, H.T., 2002, Modes of meaning in high school science. Applied Linguistics, 23, 348-372. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.3.348

Cited by

  1. An Comparison Analysis of Science Writing Tasks in the Chemistry Domain of Middle School Science Textbooks Developed under the 2007 & the 2009 Revised National Curriculums (RNC) vol.58, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2014.58.6.600
  2. Narrative Characteristics in High School Students' Geological Field Trip Reports: the Relationship Between the Narrative Mode of Thought and the Academic Achievement vol.35, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0735