Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

A New Way of Reading the Science Classroom Discourse: Pedagogical Discourse Analysis

과학수업담화의 새로운 독법: 교수학적 담화분석

  • Published : 2008.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to provide a cornerstone for 'Pedagogical Discourse Analysis' by connecting linguistic theory to science education practice. Pedagogical Discourse Analysis (PDA) focuses its attention on finding educational implications beyond description on classroom language. This study is specially aimed at PDA in terms of the textual aspect, which has not sparked interest in science classroom discourse. For this, we supposed that the framework of PDA composed of two axes: 'thematic flow' and 'information flow'. We presented a case of science classroom discourse in terms of PDA to investigate opportunities in its potential and utilities. This trial crosses the line of traditional science classroom discourse analysis, which has been inclined to linguistics theory. It will also suggest a new horizon for science classroom discourse in an educational context.

이 연구는 언어학적 이론을 과학교육 실제에 접목시켜 '교수학적 담화분석'의 초석을 마련하는데 그 목적이 있다. 교수학적 담화분석이란 언어학적 담화분석을 통해서, 수업언어에 대한 기술을 넘어, 교육적 함의를 이끌어 내는데 초점적인 관심을 둔다. 특히 이 연구에서는 지금까지 과학수업 담화에서 큰 관심을 받지 못했던 담화의 구성적 측면을 중심으로 교수학적 담화분석을 시도하였다. 이를 위해 체계기능언어학의 '주제 구조'와 '정보 구조'를 두 축으로 하는 '교수학적 담화분석틀'을 제안하였다. 그리고 이것의 가능성과 유용성을 탐색하기 위해서, 실제 과학수업의 담화분석 사례를 제시하였다. 이러한 노력은 언어학 이론에 경도되었던 종전의 과학수업 담화분석 연구에서 진일보하여, 교육의 맥락을 보다 충실하게 반영할 수 있는 논의를 위한 새로운 지평을 마련할 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. 맹승호 (2008). 수업 담화 장르에 기반한 광물과 암석 단원 과학 수업의 양태 변화: 담화 리지스터와 언어코드적 접근. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문
  2. 이정아, 맹승호, 김혜리, 김찬종 (2007a). 교육과정 변천에 따른 초등 과학 교과서 텍스트에 대한 체계기능 언어학적 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 27(3), 242-252
  3. 이정아, 맹승호, 김찬종 (2007b). 초등 과학 교과서 시각 이미지의 사회-기호학적 분석: '날씨'와 '일기예보' 를 중심으로. 한국지구과학회지, 28(3), 277-288 https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2007.28.3.277
  4. Beaugrande, R. de & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to textlinguistics. London: Longman
  5. Brinker, K. (1985). Linguistische textanalyse: eine einfuhrung in grundbegriffe und methoden. (이성만 (역) (2004). 텍스트 언어학의 이해: 언어학적 텍스트 분석의 기본 개념과 방법. 서울: 역락). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag
  6. Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach (2nd ed.). London: Arnold
  7. Bower, C. A. & Flinders, D. J. (1990). Responsive teaching: an ecological approach to classroom patterns of language, culture, and thought. New York: Teachers College Press
  8. Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press
  9. Candela, A. (1999). Students' power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 139-163 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(99)80107-7
  10. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
  11. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
  12. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Power and criticism: poststructural investigations in education. New York: Teachers Colledge, Columbia University
  13. Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: a functional perspective. London; New York: Continuum
  14. Clark, C. M. (2001). Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacher learning. New York: Teachers College Press
  15. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer
  16. Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the classroom. London, New York: Routledge
  17. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum
  18. 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
  19. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335-347 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050
  20. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass
  21. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (남경태 (역) (2002). 페다고지. 서울: 그린비). New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group
  22. Fries, P. (1993). Information flow in advertising. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992: Language, Communication, and Social Meaning. (Volume L), (pp. 336-352). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press
  23. Fries, P. (1995). Patterns of information in initial position in English. In P. H. Fries & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in society: systemic functional perspectives: meaning and choice in language: studies for Michael Halliday. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold
  25. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. (pp. 185-235). In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge
  26. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Cohesion in English. London: Longman
  27. Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press
  28. Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold
  29. Kazuo, F. (2006). Theme-Rheme structure: A functional approach to English and Japanese. Niigata: Niigata University
  30. Kelly, G. J. & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533-559 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199709)81:5<533::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-B
  31. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation
  32. Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, C. M., & Painter, C. (1997). Working with Functional Grammar. London, New York, Sydney, Auckland: Arnold
  33. Martin, J. R. & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge
  34. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005522
  35. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press
  36. Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open University Press
  37. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press
  38. Scott, P. H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127
  39. Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press
  40. Thornbury, S. & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: from description to pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  41. Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press
  42. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1-37 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4
  43. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  44. Yerrick, R. K. & Roth, W-M. (2005). Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
  45. Young, R. E. (1992). Critical theory and classroom talk. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters