한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제41권4호
  • /
  • Pages.339-358
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초등학교의 협력적 과학 모델링 수업에서 나타난 리더의 행위주체성 탐색

Exploring the Agency of a Student Leader in Collaborative Scientific Modeling Classes in an Elementary School

  • 투고 : 2021.05.24
  • 심사 : 2021.08.25
  • 발행 : 2021.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 초등학교 과학 모델링 수업에서 구성원들의 협력적 참여를 위해 노력했던 리더의 행위주체적 모습과 그 발현 맥락을 탐색하고, 집단적 행위주체성으로의 발전이 좌절된 맥락에 대해 분석하였다. 연구 참여자는 초등학교 5학년 1개 학급 학생 22명과 교사 1명이었으며, 학생들의 행위주체성은 수업과 인터뷰에서 나타난 발화 및 행동을 통해 분석되었다. 연구 결과, 수업 초반 리더는 권위자로서 많은 권력을 가지고 활동을 주도하였고, 이에 따라 비협력적 참여 형태가 나타났다. 그러나 수업 중반부터는 문제에 대한 해결책 파악과 개인적 경험 성찰, 연구자와의 인터뷰를 통해 소집단을 돕는 선생님으로서의 정체성을 갖고 행위주체성을 발현하게 되었다. 리더의 행위주체적인 행동은 다음과 같이 3가지 측면으로 분류할 수 있다. 첫째, 인지적 측면에서 자신의 지식을 공유하여 구성원들과의 지식 격차를 줄임으로써 구성원들이 모델링에 참여할 수 있도록 도왔다. 둘째, 규범적 측면에서 모든 학생들에게 평등한 발언권을 주기 위해 소집단의 규칙을 만들어 그들이 모두 모델링에 참여하게 했다. 셋째, 감정적 측면에서 구성원들의 기여를 인정하고 그들의 자신감을 높여 줌으로써 참여를 촉진했다. 이와 같이 리더의 행위주체성은 다양한 모습으로 나타나, 일시적으로 소집단의 권력 위계를 완화시키고 협력적인 참여 형태를 만드는 데 영향을 미쳤다. 그러나, 리더의 행위주체성이 집단적 행위주체성으로 발전되기에는 한계가 있었는데, 리더의 권력이 제한적으로 재분배되었고, 구성원들이 자신을 리더와 동등한 권위를 가진 사람으로 위치 짓지 못했기 때문이었다. 또한, 리더는 협력적 참여를 위한 구조적 지원이 부족함을 인지하고 행위주체성이 좌절되었으며, 이전의 비협력적 참여 형태로 돌아가게 되었다. 연구 결과는 리더의 행위주체성 발현을 지속시키기 위해서는 교실의 구조적 개선이 필요함을 시사하며, 리더 개인뿐만 아니라 소집단의 모든 구성원들 및 교사와의 협력을 통해 집단적 행위주체성으로 발전되어야 함을 제안한다. 이 연구는 학생들의 행위주체성 발현을 지원하는 방법에 대한 이해를 향상시키는 데 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

This study explores the agency of a student leader, expressed through efforts to distribute power and encourage participation in elementary scientific modeling classes. The study also analyzes the context in which the leader's agency was expressed and the context in which the development of a collective agency was constrained. The participants were 22 fifth-grade students. The leader's agency was analyzed by examining his words and actions. As a result, at the outset of the study, the leader had the most power, performing all the activities as the sole authority in a non-cooperative participation pattern. However, with reflection and help from the researcher, the leader recognized the problem and facilitated the participation of other students. He developed an identity as a teacher and demonstrated the agency. The leader's agentic behaviors can be categorized into three aspects. First, regarding the cognitive aspect, the leader helped other students participate in modeling by sharing his knowledge. Second, regarding the normative aspect, he made rules to give all students an equal voice. Third, regarding the emotional aspect, the leader acknowledged the contribution of the students, increasing their confidence. The leader's agency temporarily helped the group to overcome the student hierarchy, facilitating a cooperative participation pattern. However, the development of a collective agency was constrained. The power of the leader was partially redistributed, and the other students did not position themselves as equal to the leader. To support the leader's agency to develop into a collective agency, it is necessary to redistribute the power of the leader more equally and to change the recognition of students.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Anderson, L. (2010). Embedded, emboldened, and (net)working for change: Support-seeking and teacher agency in urban, high-needs schools. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 541-586. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.f2v8251444581105
  2. Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin'! Agency, identity, and science learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 187-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530044
  3. Basu, S. J. (2008). How students design and enact physics lessons: Five immigrant Caribbean youth and the cultivation of student voice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 881-899. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20257
  4. Basu, S. J., Barton, A. C., Clairmont, N., & Locke, D. (2009). Developing a framework for critical science agency through case study in a conceptual physics context. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 345-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9135-8
  5. 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
  6. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  7. Cho, Y. D. (2001). Understanding Korean secondary school classroom classes. Seoul, Korea: Company of Education and Science.
  8. Clement, J. J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism. In G. Glover & R. Ronning, C. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Assessment, theory and research (pp. 341-381). New York: Plenum.
  9. Clement, J. J. (2008). Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models
  10. Damsa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
  11. 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
  12. Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A.(1998) What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
  13. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explainingan emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
  14. Goulart, M. I., & Roth, W. M. (2010). Engaging young children in collective curriculum design. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 553-562.
  15. Han, M. H. (2018). Role of Epistemic Affect in Elementary School Students' Scientific Modeling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Korea.
  16. Han, M. H., Kim, H, -B. (2012). Elementary Student's Reasoning Patterns Represented in Constructing Models of "Food Web and Food Pyramid". Elementary Science Education, 31(1), 71-83.
  17. Han, M. H., Kim, H, -B. (2017). Elementary Students' Cognitive-Emotional Rebuttals in Their Modeling Activity: Focusing on Epistemic Affect. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 37(1), 155-168.
  18. Harris, E. M., & Ballard, H. L. (2021). Examining student environmental science agency across school science contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  19. Holland, D. (1998). Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  20. Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and historical productions of persons. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3895/actio.v2n3.7536
  21. Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Engaging in science: A feeling for the discipline. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 156-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2015.1088441
  22. Jang, E. K., Ko, W., & Kang, S. J. (2012). The analysis of university student's modeling patterns and perceptions through modeling experiments. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.1.001
  23. Jeon, E. (2021). Exploring Students' Epistemic Agency Expressed in Collaborative Scientific Modeling. Unpublished master's thesis, Seoul National University, Korea.
  24. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modeling, teachers' views on the nature of modeling, and implications for the education of modelers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142
  25. Ke, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2021). Supporting students' meaningful engagement in scientific modeling through epistemological messages: A case study of contrasting teaching approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 335-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21662
  26. Kim, H., Kim, H. -B., Kang, E. (2015). Expression of Students' Agency in an Elementary School Science Class: A Focus on Teaching and Learning Contexts. Biology Education, 43(3), 289-301. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2015.43.3.289
  27. Ko, M. L. M., & Krist, C. (2019). Opening up curricula to redistribute epistemic agency: A framework for supporting science teaching. Science Education, 103(4), 979-1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21511
  28. 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 Research in Science Education, 36(3), 471-483. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0471
  29. Lee, K. H., Yun, S. -M., Kim, H. -B. (2012). Understanding of Middle School Students' Small Group Argumentation of Plant and Animal Classification: Focusing on the Effects of Leader. Biology Education, 40(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.1.71
  30. Lee, M., & Kim, H. -B. (2019). Key Stages of a Research and Students' Epistemic Agency in a Student-Driven R&E. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 39(4), 511-523.
  31. Lee, S., & Kim, H. -B. (2017). Exploring Secondary Students' Dialogic Argumentation Regarding Excretion via Collaborative Modeling. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 37(6), 1037-1049.
  32. Lee, S., Park, S. -H., Kim, H. -B. (2016). Exploring Secondary Students' Progression in Group Norms and Argumentation Competency through Collaborative Reflection about Small Group Argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 36(6), 895-910. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.6.0895
  33. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A.Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Child psychology in practice (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  34. Lim, S. -E., Choe, S. -U., Park, C., Kim, C. -J. (2020). Exploring the Influence of an Explicit and Reflective Modeling Instruction on Elementary Students' Metamodeling Knowledge. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 40(2), 127-140.
  35. Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459
  36. Ministry of Education (2015). Science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
  37. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework of New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The NationalAcademies Press.
  38. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  39. Noh, T., Kim, Y., Han, S., Kang, S. (2002). Reserch Article : Elementary School Students' Views on the Nature of Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22(4), 882-891.
  40. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Education Working Papers.
  41. Paris, C., & Lung, P. (2008). Agency, and child-centered practices in novice teachers: Autonomy, efficacy, intentionality, and reflectivity. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020802275302
  42. Park, S. -H., Lee, S., Kim, H. -B. (2014). Exploring Middle School Students' Metacognitive Development via Collaborative Reflection of Small-Group Argumentation in Science Classroom. Biology Education, 42(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2014.42.1.1
  43. Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2013). Teachers as agents of change: Teacher agency and emerging models of curriculum. In M. Priestley & G. Biesta(Eds.). Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice(pp. 187-206). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  44. Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Clement, J., & Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2008). An instructional model derived from model construction and criticism theory. In Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 23-43). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  45. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  46. Sandoval, W. A., Bell, P., Coleman, E. B., Enyedy, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2000). Designing Knowledge Representations for Learning Epistemic Practices of Science.
  47. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0101_3
  48. Schenkel, K., & Barton, A. C. (2020). Critical science agency and power hierarchies: Restructuring power within groups to address injustice beyond them. Science Education, 104(3), 500-529. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21564
  49. Schenkel, K., Barton, A. C., Tan, E., Nazar, C. R., & Flores, M. D. G. D. (2019). Framing equity through a closer examination of critical science agency. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 309-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09914-1
  50. Sharma, A. (2008). Making (electrical) connections: Exploring student agency in a school in India. Science Education, 92(2), 297-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20246
  51. Shim, S. -Y. (2015). Shift in epistemological framing of small group students during their social construction of scientific models. Unpublished master's thesis, Seoul National University, Korea.
  52. Shultz, J. J., Florio, S., & Erickson, F. (1982). Aspects of the cultural organization of social relationships in communication at home and in school. Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education, 88-123.
  53. Song, H., Kim, H. -B. (2020). Distributed Leadership in Small Group during Scientific Modeling. Biology Education, 48(2), 168-187. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2020.48.2.168
  54. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn scienceas-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
  55. Stroupe, D., Caballero, M. D., & White, P. (2018). Fostering students' epistemic agency through the co-configuration of moth research. Science Education, 102(6), 1176-1200. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21469
  56. Uhm, J., Kim, H. -B. (2020). Changes in Teaching Practices of Elementary School Teachers in Scientific Modeling Classes: Focused on Modeling Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 40(5), 543-563.
  57. Wegerif, R., Li, L., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking. Routledge.
  58. Wray, K. A., & Richmond, G. (2018). Factors shaping the agency of beginning science teachers working in high-poverty schools. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(8), 785-803. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2018.1514824
  59. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
  60. Yoo, Y. J., Oh, P. S. (2016). Effects of Modeling-Based Science Inquiry Instruction on Elementary Students' Learning in the Unit of Seasonal Changes. Elementary Science Education, 35(2), 265-276.
  61. Zimmerman, H. T., & Weible, J. L. (2018). Epistemic agency in an environmental sciences watershed investigation fostered by digital photography. International Journal of Science Education, 40(8), 894-918. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1455115
  62. Zivic, A., Smith, J. F., Reiser, B., Edwards, K., Novak, M., & McGill, T. (2018). Negotiating Epistemic Agency and Target Learning Goals: Supporting Coherence from the Students' Perspective. In Kay, J. and Luckin, R. (Eds.) Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018, Volume 1. (pp. 25-32). London, UK: International Society of the Learning Sciences.