Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring the Teachers' Responsive Teaching Practice and Epistemological Framing in Whole Class Discussion After Small Group Argumentation Activity

소집단 논변 활동 후 전체 논의에서 이루어진 교사의 반응적 교수 실행과 인식론적 프레이밍 탐색

  • Received : 2017.12.08
  • Accepted : 2018.01.31
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers' responsive practices in whole class discussion after small group argumentation and the underlying epistemological framing. Three teachers and 84 students participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities about the sensory system. We recorded both their discussions in the classes and our interviews with the teachers, which were transcribed for analysis. The results of the analysis showed that the teachers' responsive practices and the epistemological framing were categorized into four types. By framing the discussion as 'reaching the correct answer through discussion,' the teacher focused on whether students' ideas corresponded to scientific concepts and transferred scientific ideas to the students. By framing the discussion as 'eliciting appropriate conceptual resources and developing them into a scientific idea through critical evaluation,' the teacher engaged in the students' discussion as another participant, and considered the small groups' arguments as resources that could develop into scientific concepts. By framing the discussion as 'sharing small groups' arguments,' the teacher responded by asking for clarification of each group's argument, considering it as a valid argument in its own way. By framing the discussion as 'reaching a consented argument through critical evaluation,' the teacher negotiated students' critical evaluation and revision of the arguments. We explored the implications and limitations of each type of responsive practice and considered that the results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies in argumentation activities.

본 연구는 소집단 논변 활동을 도입한 과학 수업에서 소집단 논의 후 이루어지는 교실 전체 논의에서의 반응적 교수 실행을 탐색하고, 이로부터 드러나는 교사의 인식론적 프레이밍을 파악했다. 이를 위해 교사 3명과 이 교사들이 담당한 학급의 학생들 총 84명이 본 연구에 참여했고, 자극과 반응 단원의 학습 개념을 바탕으로 설계된 논변 수업을 진행했다. 연구자들은 수업에서 이루어진 학생들의 논의를 녹화하고 교사와의 인터뷰를 실시했으며, 교사와 학생들의 담화와 인터뷰 내용을 전사하여 분석 자료로 활용했다. 연구 결과, 교사의 반응적 교수 실행은 교실 구성원 간의 상호작용의 특성과, 논변을 발전시키는 과정에서 활용되는 개념적 또는 인식론적 자원이 누구로 부터 활성되었는지에 따라 네 가지로 구분되었다. 교사가 전체 논의를 '학생들이 논의를 통해 정답에 도달하는 활동'으로서 프레이밍한 경우에는 각 소집단의 논변을 과학 개념과의 비교하고 과학 개념을 전달했고, '적절한 개념적 자원을 이끌어내어 논변을 비판적으로 검토하고 수정하는 활동'으로 프레이밍한 경우에는 각 소집단의 논변을 과학 개념으로 나아갈 수 있는 자원으로서 여기며 교사가 직접 논의에 참여하여 학생과 함께 정당화를 수정하는 반응적 실행을 보였다. 전체 논의를 '소집단의 논변을 명확히 표현하여 공유하는 활동'으로서 프레이밍한 경우에는 각 소집단의 논변을 하나의 나름대로 타당한 논변으로 보아 이를 구체적으로 표현하도록 지원했으며, '비판적 평가를 바탕으로 교실 전체에서 합의된 논변을 구성하는 활동'으로 프레이밍한 경우 각 소집단의 논변을 교실 전체의 합의된 논변을 구성하기 위한 자원으로 여기고 학생들 간 상호작용을 통해 논변의 비판적 검토와 발달이 이루어지도록 중재했다. 본 연구는 다양한 맥락에서 드러나는 교사의 프레이밍과 반응적 교수 실행이 지니는 의의와 제한점을 살펴보아, 현장의 상황을 고려한 논변 활동에서의 반응적 교수 전략을 마련하는 데에 기여할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39-51.
  2. Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802713507
  3. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
  4. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
  5. Colestock, A. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). What teachers notice when they notice student thinking. In A. D. Robertson, R. E., Scherr, D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 126-144). NY: Routledge.
  6. Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  8. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  9. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, (pp. 409-434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding student learning. London: Routledge.
  11. Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00292
  12. Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0063
  13. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofre, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
  14. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfre of learning: Research and perspectives (pp. 88-119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  15. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
  16. Hand, V., Penuel, W. R., & Gutierrez, K. D. (2012). (Re)framing educational possibility: Attending to power and equity in shaping access to and within learning opportunities. Human Development, 55(5-6), 250-268. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345313
  17. Hare, A. P. (1981). Group size. American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 695-708. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276428102400507
  18. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20373
  19. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erudran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
  20. Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers' ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
  21. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  22. Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
  23. Kwon, J. S., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring small group argumentation shown in designing an experiment: Focusing on students' epistemic goals and epistemic considerations for activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  24. Lee, H., Cho, H., & Sohn, J. (2009). The teachers' view on using argumentation in school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(6), 666-679.
  25. Lee, Y. N., Lee, S. Y., Kim, H. B. (2015). Understanding students' knowledge construction and scientific argumentation according to the level of openness in inquiry and the abstraction level of scientific knowledge. Biology Education, 43(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2015.43.1.50
  26. Lee, E. J., Yun, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring small group argumentation and epistemological framing of gifted science students as revealed by the analysis of their responses to anomalous data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 419-429. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0419
  27. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
  28. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20092
  29. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6
  30. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
  31. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
  32. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  33. Oh, J., & Oh, P. S. (2017). An exploration of the possibility of implementing 'responsive teaching' (RT) in elementary science classrooms. Elementary Science Education, 36(3), 227-245.
  34. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.
  35. Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Erico Fermi summer school, course CLVI (pp. 1-64). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
  36. Robertson, A. D., Atkins, L. J., Levin, D. M., & Richards, J. (2016). What is responsive teaching? In A. D. Robertson, R. E., Scherr, D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 227-247). NY: Routledge.
  37. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
  38. Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21063
  39. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
  40. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  41. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1995). "This question is just too, too easy!" Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
  42. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publication.
  43. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Cited by

  1. 소집단 과학 논변 활동에서 초임 교사의 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계 탐색 -프레이밍을 중심으로- vol.39, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.6.739
  2. 교사학습공동체에 참여한 한 고등학교 교사의 과학적 모델링에 대한 이해 및 수업 실행 변화 탐색 -프레임 분석을 중심으로- vol.40, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.1.29
  3. 지구과학 예비교사가 설계한 수업내용의 논증구조에 나타난 반박 분석 vol.13, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2020.13.3.238
  4. 반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.268