한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제41권3호
  • /
  • Pages.193-202
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

비생산적 논변에서 생산적 논변으로의 실행 변화 탐색 -인식론적 자원과 맥락을 중심으로-

Exploring Scientific Argumentation Practice from Unproductive to Productive: Focus on Epistemological Resources and Contexts

  • 투고 : 2021.02.10
  • 심사 : 2021.06.05
  • 발행 : 2021.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 과학 논변 활동에 참여하는 학생들이 비생산적, 생산적 논변 실행에서 각각 어떠한 인식론적 자원들을 활성화시키는지 탐색하고, 논변 실행 변화에 어떤 맥락이 기여하는지를 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 과학 논변 활동에 참여한 소집단 학생들의 수업 실행과 면담을 녹화 및 녹음하여 전사했으며, 학생 활동지와 연구자의 필드노트를 수집하여 본 연구의 분석 자료로 활용하였다. 분석 결과, 초점 집단은 비생산적 실행에서 전파, 신뢰, 축적 자원을 활성화시키다가 생산적 실행에서 구성, 이해, 축적, 형성, 반박 자원을 활성화시키는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 인식론적 자원 변화에 따른 실행 변화에 기여한 맥락은 친숙하지 않은 형태의 논변 과제가 제공된 것과 더불어 소집단 내 인식적 권위자의 정서적, 인식적, 개념적 지원이 작용한 것으로 분석되었다. 본 연구는 학습자의 맥락 의존적인 인식론에 따른 실행 변화를 분석하는 연구들에 추가적인 사례 연구로 제공될 수 있으며, 추후 학생들의 진정한 과학 참여를 위해 생산적인 인식론의 형성 및 안정화에 대한 논의에 기여할 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.

This study aims to identify what kind of epistemological resources were activated in unproductive and productive practice by students participating in scientific argumentation, and to explore which contexts result in changes in argumentative practice. We collected transcriptions of participants' argumentative lessons and interview, participants' work sheets, and researchers' field notes. The analysis revealed that the focus group activated different kinds of epistemological resources depending on their practice; propagated, belief, and accumulation in unproductive practice and constructed, understanding, accumulation, formation and rebuttal in productive practice. We found two contextual cues that led to these changes; unfamiliar form of argumentative task was provided and emotional, epistemic, and conceptual support of the epistemic authority. This work can be provided as additional case studies to analyze changes in practice according to learner context-dependent epistemology, and we expect to contribute to discussions of productive epistemology and stabilization for students' authentic science engagement.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
  2. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012a). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
  3. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012b). Students' framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 73-93). Springer Netherlands.
  4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
  5. 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
  6. Cho, H. A., Chang, J. E., & Kim, H. B. (2013). Epistemic level in middle school students' small-group argumentation using first-hand or second-hand data. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 33(2), 486-500. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.486
  7. Cho, H., Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2019). Exploring the Role of Collaborative Reflection in Small Group Argumentation: Focus on Students' Epistemic Considerations and Practices. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.1.1
  8. 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
  9. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
  10. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, 4(1), 409-434. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691904.013
  11. Entwistle, N. and Ramsden, P. 1982. Understanding Student Learning, London: Croom Helm.
  12. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  13. 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
  14. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology (pp. 169-190). NJ: Psychology Press.
  15. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3
  16. 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). Information Age Publishing.
  17. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011965830686
  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., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school 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. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education. 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  24. 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
  25. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
  26. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (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
  27. 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