Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Practical Epistemology Analysis on Epistemic Process in Science Learning

과학 학습의 지식구성 과정에 대한 실제적 인식론 분석

  • Received : 2018.04.09
  • Accepted : 2018.05.22
  • Published : 2018.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to clarify the specific terms of epistemic and epistemological by reviewing the literature on epistemological understanding of science learning, examine the necessity of epistemic discourse analysis based on the view of social epistemology, and provide an exemplar of practical epistemology analysis for elementary children's science learning. The review was conducted in terms of meaning and terminology about epistemic or epistemological approach to science learning, epistemology of/for science, and methodologies for epistemic discourse analysis. As an alternative way of epistemic discourse analysis in science classroom I employed practical epistemology analysis (by Wickman), evidence-explanation continuum (by Duschl), and DREEC diagram (by Maeng et al.). The methods were administered to an elementary science class for the third grade where children observed sedimentary rocks. Through the outcomes of analysis I sought to understand the processes how children collected data by observation, identified evidence, and constructed explanations about rocks. During the process of practical epistemology analysis the cases of four categories, such as encounter, stand-fast, gap, and relation, were identified. The sequence of encounter, stand fast, gap, and relation showed how children observed sedimentary rocks and how they came to learn the difference among the rocks. The epistemic features of children's observation discourse, although different from scientists' discourses during their own practices, showed data-only conversation, evidence-driven conversation, or explanation inducing conversation. Thus I argue even elementary children are able to construct their own knowledge and their epistemic practices are productive.

Keywords

References

  1. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S. & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemology in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
  2. Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095249
  3. Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institution: Social process in the workplace and school. New York, NY: Continuum.
  4. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I. & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004
  5. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  6. Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey(Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Arlingon, VA: NSTA Press.
  7. Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1023
  8. Ford, M. J. & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20482
  9. Goldman, A. I. & Whitcomb, D. (2011). Social epistemology: Essential readings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  10. Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A. & Braten, I. (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
  11. Ha, H. & Kim, H-B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching’ 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
  12. Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53-90. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3
  14. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E. & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  15. Hamza, K. M. & Wickman, P-O. (2013). Supporting students’ progression in science: Continuity between the particular, the contingent, and the general. Science Education, 97, 113-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21042
  16. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemological research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353-383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011965830686
  17. Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Routledge.
  18. Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
  19. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 69-80). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  20. Kelly, G. J. (2016). Methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 393-408). New York, NY: Routledge.
  21. Kelly, G. J. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  22. Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036
  23. King, P. & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  24. Kitchener, R. (2002). Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00003-X
  25. 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
  26. Lee, C-E. & Kim, H-B. (2016). Understanding the role of wonderment questions related to activation of conceptual resources in scientific model construction: Focusing on students’ epistemological framing and positional framing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 471-483. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0471
  27. Lee, M-H., Johanson, R. E. & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92, 191-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20245
  28. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E. & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Education, 90, 148-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20092
  29. Ligozat, F., Wickman, P.-O. & Hamza, K. (2011). Using practical epistemology analysis to study the teacher's and students' joint action in the mathematical classroom. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2472-2481).
  30. Rzeszow, Poland: University of Rzeszow. Liu, S. Y. & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1055-1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701338901
  31. Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J. & Östman, L. (2009). Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication. Science Education, 93, 859-874. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20334
  32. Maeng, S. & Kim, C-J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students’ pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95(3), 431-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20429
  33. Maeng, S., Park, Y-S. & Kim, C-J. (2013). Methodological review of the research on argumentative discourse focused on analyzing collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 840-862. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.840
  34. Ministry of Education(MOE) (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [Issue 9].
  35. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  36. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  37. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  38. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards. Achieve Inc.
  39. Oh, P. S. & Ahn, Y. (2013). An analysis of classroom discourse as an epistemic practice: Based on elementary science classrooms. Elementary Science Education, 32(3), 269-284.
  40. Oh, P. S. & Ahn, Y. (2015). Exploration of discursiveepistemic mechanisms in high school earth science lessons. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 36(4), 390-403. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2015.36.4.390
  41. Oh, P. S. (2014). Characteristics of teacher learning and changes in teachers' epistemic beliefs within a learning community of elementary science teachers. Elementary Science Education, 33(4), 683-699. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.4.683
  42. Oh, P. S. & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building 'Classroom Science Knowledge' (CSK). Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597-625. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.3.597
  43. Quennerstedt, M. (2013). Practical epistemologies in physical education practice. Sport, Education and Society, 18 (3), 311-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.582245
  44. Russ, R. (2014). Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science. Science Education, 98, 388-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21106
  45. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
  46. Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  47. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  48. Tsai, C. C. (1999). Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths: A study of eighth graders' scientific epistemological views and learning in lab activities. Science Education, 83, 654-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6<654::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Y
  49. Tsai, C. C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800363836
  50. Wickman, P-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325-344. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10129
  51. Wickman, P-O. & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601-623. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10036
  52. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  53. Yang, F. Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning a socio-scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31, 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569042000310976