Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Impact of Reading Framework as a Reading Strategy on Writing for Reflection of Middle School Students

읽기전략으로 사용된 읽기틀이 중학생들의 반성 글쓰기에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2012.10.16
  • Accepted : 2013.02.08
  • Published : 2013.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of reading framework on writing for reflection when applied to inquiry-based Science Writing Heuristic approach. This study was conducted with 67 3rd grade middle school students. Thirty-two out of 67 students were assigned to R-SWH (Reading framework-Science Writing Heuristic) group while the other 35 students were assigned to SWH (Science Writing Heuristic) group. The R-SWH group has consistently used reading framework which the SWH group has not used when the inquiry-based science writing heuristic approach were carried out. The result of this study indicated that the R-SWH group showed a higher proportion of students who made writing for reflection by learning from reading materials than the SWH group. The R-SWH group used reading materials in order to understand the idea comprehensively and concept related to the topic the most, while the SWH group also used them for the same purpose as the R-SWH group but the ratio was less than the R-SWH group. In addition, as the learning activity has progressed, the R-SWH group showed that the proportion of students who transferred the science concept from reading materials into writing for reflection and the number of transferred concepts were higher than those of the SWH group. Therefore, the reading framework applied to inquiry-based science writing heuristic approach can facilitate a meaningful activity on reading and writing as a scaffolding to develop conceptual understanding.

이 연구의 목적은 탐구에 기반한 과학 글쓰기 활동(Inquiry-based Science Writing Heuristic)에서 읽기틀이 사용되었을 때 반성 글쓰기에 미치는 영향을 알아보기 위한 것이다. 이 연구는 중학교 3학년 67명을 대상으로 하였으며, 32명을 R-SWH(Reading framework-Science Writing Heuristic) 집단으로, 35명을 SWH(Science Writing Heuristic) 집단으로 선정하였다. 총 4개의 탐구에 기반한 과학 글쓰기 활동에서 R-SWH 집단은 읽기틀을 지속적으로 사용하였고, SWH 집단은 읽기틀을 사용하지 않았다. 연구 결과 R-SWH 집단은 SWH 집단 보다 읽기자료에서 학습한 내용을 활용하여 반성 글쓰기를 작성한 인원의 비율이 높았다. 반성 글쓰기에서 읽기자료를 활용한 용도를 분석한 결과, R-SWH 집단은 학습 주제와 관련된 개념을 통합적으로 이해하기 위해 읽기자료를 사용하는 비율이 가장 높았고, SWH 집단 역시 개념에 대한 통합적인 이해를 설명하기 위해 읽기자료를 사용하였으나 R-SWH 집단에 비해 그 비율이 높지 않았다. 또한, R-SWH 집단의 경우 활동이 진행됨에 따라 읽기자료로부터 학습한 과학개념을 반성 글쓰기로 전이하는 학습자의 비율과 전이되는 개념의 수가 SWH 집단에 비해 높았다. 따라서 탐구에 기반한 과학 글쓰기 활동에서 사용된 읽기틀은 의미 있는 읽기, 쓰기 활동을 촉진시켜 과학개념에 대한 이해를 발달시키기 위한 스캐폴딩의 역할을 할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김미정(2011). 전략적 읽기틀을 이용한 탐구적 과학글쓰기가 중학생들의 학업성취도와 비판적 사고력 및 요약 글쓰기에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 석사학위 논문.
  2. 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Brian Hand(2008). 논의를강조한 탐구적 과학글쓰기의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용.한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936.
  3. 성화목, 황소영, 남정희(2012). 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동에서 학생들의 반성적 사고와 읽기틀의 관계에 대한 고찰. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(1), 146-159.
  4. Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effect of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
  5. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamala, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Butler, G. (1991). Science and thinking: The write connection. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2, 106-110 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02983173
  8. Choi, A. (2010). Argument structure in the science writing heuristic(SWH) approach. J Korea Assoc. Sci. Edu, 30(3), 323-336.
  9. Dianovsky, M. T., & Wink, D. J. (2012). Student learning through journal writing in a general education chemistry course for pre-elementary education majors. Science Education, 96(3), 543-565. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21010
  10. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
  11. Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: The Falmer Press.
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310914
  13. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. K. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057-1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915
  14. Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. (2005). Introduction to the science writing heuristic. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists'guide to effective teaching, (pp. 140-154). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  15. Halliday, M. A., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
  16. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing to learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Educaion 86(6), 737-755. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10016
  17. Holliday, W. G. (1992). Helping college science students read and write. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22(1), 58-60.
  18. Kahaney, P., & Heinrich, K. (1994). Journal writing as social interaction: Writing to learn in the workplace. In Sinnott, J. D. (Ed.), Interdisciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  19. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 691-718. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<691::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-G
  20. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prian, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic ac a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  21. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology, 11, 203-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021913217147
  22. Martin, N. (1992). Language across the curriculum: Where it began and what it promises. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
  23. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003854216687
  24. Massey, D. D., & Heafner, T. L. (2004). Promoting reading comprehension in social studies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.1.3
  25. McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00010-Z
  26. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440-466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440
  27. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students'metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
  28. Mulcahy-Ernt, P. I., & Ryshkewitch, S. (1994). Expressive journal writing for comprehendinge literature: A strategy for evoking cognitive complexity. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356940100405
  29. Parkinson, J., Jackson, L., Kirkwood, T., & Padayachee, V. (2007). A scaffolded reading and writing course for foundation level science students. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 443-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.01.001
  30. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Free Press.
  31. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00003-0
  32. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students' perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83(2), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<151::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-S
  33. Pressely, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbalprotocols of reading: The natural of constructively responsive research, Mahwah. Nj: Erlbaum.
  34. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for Practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
  35. Rose, D., Lui-Chivizhe, L., McKnight, A., & Smith, A. (2003). Scaffolding academic reading and writing at the Koori Centre. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 32, 41-49.
  36. Royer, J. M., Cisero, C. A., & Carlo, M. S. (1993). Techniques and procedures for assessing cognitive skills. Review of Educational Research, 63, 201-243. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002201
  37. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Helping students become better writers. School Administrator, 42(4), 16-26.
  38. 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.
  39. Unsworth, L. (1997). Explaining explanations: enhancing science learning and literacy development. Australian Science teachers Journal, 43(1), 34-39.
  40. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in science classroom. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  41. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Education Psychology, 91, 301-311
  42. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2
  43. Zinsser, W. (1988). Writing to learn. New York: Harper & Row.

Cited by

  1. Investigating the Cognitive Process of a Student's Modeling on a Modeling-Emphasized Argument-Based General Chemistry Experiment vol.35, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0313
  2. 고등학교 논의기반 탐구 과학수업에서 학생 평가활동이 반성적 사고에 미치는 영향 vol.36, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0347
  3. 논의-기반 탐구 과학수업에서 역할분담에 따른 고등학생들의 인성 역량 변화 분석 vol.37, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.763
  4. 고등학교 논의기반 탐구 과학수업에서 학생 평가활동이 주장과 증거 형성에 미치는 영향 vol.62, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.3.203