Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring Characteristics and Limitations of a Novice Teacher's Responsive Teaching Practice in Small Group Scientific Argumentation: Focus on Framing

소집단 과학 논변 활동에서 초임 교사의 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계 탐색 -프레이밍을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2019.11.08
  • Accepted : 2019.12.05
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics and limitations of a novice teachers's responsive teaching practice, who framed argumentation productively. One novice teacher and two eighth-grade classes participated in this study. Two of the small student groups with active teacher intervention were selected as focus groups. Students engaged in argumentation activity where they built an argument for hearing if the eardrum was torn. We recorded the class and interviews with the teacher and the students, which were transcribed for use in the analysis of the teacher's responsive teaching practices and epistemological, positional framing. We discovered that teacher thought that he should position himself as a facilitator to encourage students to present ideas clearly and to reach consensus. His framing was consistent in responsive teaching practices. Positioning himself as a facilitator, after he framed the discussion as idea sharing discussion by eliciting and probing students' idea, he framed the discussion as argumentative discussion by taking up students' idea and pointing out disagreement between them. As a result, members of small group 1 engaged in argumentative discussion and reached consensus. However, the teacher's productive framing did not guarantee students' productive argumentation practice. In small group 2, he did not elicit and probe students' ideas successfully. As a result, members of small group 2 did not engaged in argumentative discussions. He responded limitedly to the lack of students' conceptions because of lack of understanding about learners. Also, he mainly attended to students' reasoning, and not to students' framing about argumentation because he considered argumentation only as a tool for conceptual learning. The result of this study will contribute to the establishment of responsive teaching in science classrooms.

본 연구는 과학 논변 활동을 생산적으로 프레이밍하는 초임 과학교사의 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계에 대해 프레이밍 관점에서 분석했다. 논변 수업을 해본 적이 없는 초임 교사와 2개 학급 총 52명의 중학생이 연구에 참여하였고, 자극과 반응 단원에서 논변 활동을 도입하였다. 학생들은 귀의 구조와 기능을 학습한 뒤, 고막이 찢어지면 들을 수 없을까에 대한 개인의 논변을 구성하고 논의를 통해 소집단 논변을 구성하는 활동에 참여하였다. 교사의 반응적 교수 실행이 활발한 집단 중에서 소집단 구성원의 특징이 유사하였으나 논변 활동의 양상이 달랐던 두 소집단을 초점 집단으로 선정하였다. 학생들의 소집단 논의 과정과 교사 면담, 학생 면담, 학생 추가 면담은 녹화·녹음 되었다. 이를 전사하여 인식론적 프레이밍과 위치 짓기 프레이밍의 관점에서 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계에 대하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 교사는 논변 활동에서 촉진자로서 학생들의 아이디어를 공유시킨 후, 서로 다른 의견을 합의해야 한다고 프레이밍하고 있었다. 이는 반응적 교수 실행에서 일치하게 나타났다. 교사는 소집단 과학 논변 활동에서 촉진자로서 학생 사고를 이끌어내고 탐색함으로써 학생 의견을 더욱 명료하게 제시하도록 논의를 아이디어 공유 논의로 프레이밍한 후, 서로 다른 의견의 불일치를 부각시키며 논의를 논쟁적 논의로 전환시키고자 노력하였다. 하지만 교사의 생산적인 프레이밍이 학생들의 생산적인 실행을 보장하지는 않았다. 초임교사는 학습자에 대한 이해가 부족하여 학생들의 추론을 정교화시킬 때 개념을 활성화시켜주는 데에 한계를 보였으며, 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍에 주목하지 못했다는 한계를 보였다. 본 연구는 과학 수업에서 학생에게 반응적인 교수를 실행하는 문화를 정착시키는 데에 기여할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  3. Bills, L. (2000). Politeness in teacher-student dialogue: A socio-linguistic analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(2), 40-47.
  4. Bosser, U., & Lindahl, M. (2019). Students' positioning in the classroom: A study of teacher-student interactions in a socioscientific issue context. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 371-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9627-1
  5. Crawford, T. (2005). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 139-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20047
  6. 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
  7. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  8. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A.W. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  9. Dyer, E. B., & Sherin, M. G. (2016). Instructional reasoning about interpretations of student thinking that supports responsive teaching in secondary mathematics. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 48(1-2), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0740-1
  10. Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
  11. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  12. Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. (2019). Teachers' framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821-844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530
  13. Greeno, J. G. (2009). A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to Son and Goldstone. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 269-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000903014386
  14. Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Enderle, P. (2018). How concept familiarity and experience with scientific argumentation are related to the way groups participate in an episode of argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1264-1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21451
  15. 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
  16. Ha, H., Lee, Y., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring the teachers' responsive teaching practice and epistemological framing in whole class discussion after small group argumentation activity. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 38(1), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.11
  17. 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.
  18. Harre, R. & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harre & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14-31). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  19. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in highschool genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  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. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062002129
  22. Kawasaki, J., & Sandoval, W. (2019). The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 906-922. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1657765
  23. 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
  24. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  25. 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
  26. Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.930707
  27. Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers' encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<3::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Y
  28. Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
  29. Monte-Sano, C., & Budano, C. (2013). Developing and enacting pedagogical content knowledge for teaching history: An exploration of two novice teachers' growth over three years. Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 22(2), 171-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.742016
  30. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  31. Noh, T., Kim, Y., Yang, C., & Kang, H. (2011). A case study on beginning teachers' teaching professionalism based on pedagogical content knowledge in science-gifted education. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 31(8), 1214-1228. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.8.1214
  32. Oliveira, A. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20345
  33. Park, J., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring teachers' responsive teaching practice in argumentation-based science classroom: Focus on structural and dialogical aspects of argument. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 38(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.69
  34. Park, S., & Oliver, J. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
  35. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.
  36. Radoff, J., & Hammer, D. (2015). Attention to student framing in responsive teaching. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 189-202). New York, NY, Routledge.
  37. 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.
  38. Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015046621428
  39. Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (Eds.) (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
  40. Shim, S. Y., Kim, H. B. (2018). Framing negotiation: Dynamics of epistemological and positional framing in small groups during scientific modeling. Science Education, 102(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21306
  41. van de Sande, C. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problem-solving discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.639000
  42. Wallace, C., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20032
  43. Wendell, K., Swenson, J., & Dalvi, T. (2019). Epistemological framing and novice elementary teachers' approaches to learning and teaching engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 956-982. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21541

Cited by

  1. 반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.268