Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

An Analysis of Science Writing by High School Students through the Argumentation Structure Instruction: Focus on Writing tasks Based on Genres of Science Writing

논증 구조 교육을 통한 고등학교 학생들의 과학 글쓰기 분석: 과학 글쓰기 장르에 따른 글쓰기 과제를 중심으로

  • Published : 2009.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the changes in structure and contents of different functional genre of science writing during high school using the argumentation structure. For this thesis, seven students of a girls' high school in the national capital region took the argumentation structure instruction for 40 hours for a month. As a result, considerable changes had occurred amid the Explanation genre, the Experiment-recount genre and the Exposition genre. In the Explanation genre and the Experiment-recount genre, noticeable progress had been made in the usage of the argumentation elements and scientific concepts and knowledge evolved in a more rarified and detailed manner. In the Exposition genre, argumentation structure had changed from the simple argumentation structure to the subordination or the multiplex argumentation structure. Simultaneously, it was affirmed that the types and number of the argumentation elements increased significantly along with enlargement of respective scientific concepts and knowledge. Hence, this implies students can determine their understanding of scientific facts and contents during the progress of developing the argumentation structure. It is necessary that students take the well-organized argumentation structure instruction.

본 연구에서는 논증 구조 교육을 실시한 후 학생의 과학 글쓰기에서 나타나는 논증 구조 변화와 과학 개념 및 지식이 어떻게 달라지는지 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 수도권에 위치한 고등학교 2학년 자연계열여학생 중 7명을 선정하여 한 달 동안 총 40시간에 걸쳐 논증 구조 교육을 실시하였다. 논증교육을 실시하기 전과 후 설명, 실험-상세묘사, 논증 등 각각의 과학 장르에 대해 학생들의 글쓰기에 어떠한 변화가 있는지를 분석하였다. 그 결과 세 가지 장르 모두에서 유의미한 변화를 발견 할 수 있었다. 설명과 실험-상세 묘사 장르에서는 논증 요소들이 더 다양하고 풍부해질 뿐만 아니라, 과학 개념 및 지식이 더 구체적이고 세부적으로 변하였다. 논쟁 장르에서도 글의 구조가 단순 논증 구조에서 벗어나 근거를 여러 가지 다양한 방법으로 제시하게 되는 다중 논증 구조나 종속 논증 구조의 형태로 바뀌었으며, 논증 요소들의 종류와 수도 많아짐을 확인할 수 있었다. 이는 학생들이 논증 구조를 세우는 과정을 통해 과학 개념들에 대한 이해를 확고히 하게 됨을 의미하며, 체계적인 논증 구조 교육의 필요성을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강순민 (2004). 과학적 맥락의 논의 과제 해결 과정에서 나타나는 논의과정 요소의 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위 논문
  2. 강현모 (2007). 찰스 아이브스의 <114 노래집> (1922) : 미국의 정체성을 찾기 위한 장르에 대한 탐색. 서울대학교 박사학위 논문
  3. 곽경화, 남정희 (2009). 과학적 논의과정 활동을 통한 학생들의 논의 과정 변화 및 논의 상황에 따른 논의과정 특성. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(4), 400-413
  4. 김재봉(2002). 창조적 국어사용과 논증 문화. 한국초등국어교육 제 20집. 한국초등국어교육학회
  5. 김희경, 송진웅 (2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구 모형의 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1216-1234
  6. 남정희, 곽경과, 장경화, Hand, B. (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학글쓰기의 중학교 과학수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936
  7. 민병곤 (2000). 신문 사설의 논증 구조 분석. 국어국문학, 127, 133-154
  8. 박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국지구과학회지, 27(4), 410-415
  9. 양일호, 이효정, 이효녕, 조현준. (2009). 과학적논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 203-220
  10. 이선경 (2006). 소집단 토론에서 발생하는 학생들의 상호작용적 논증 유형 및 특징. 대한화학회지, 50(1), 79-88 https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.1.079
  11. 이선영 (2002). 토론의 논증 구성과 사회적 상호작용에 관한 연구, 서울대학교 석사학위 논문
  12. American Association for the Advancement of Science[AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press
  13. Barrs, M. (2004) Writing and Thingking. Retrieved from the World Wide web: http://www.teachingthinking.com
  14. Becker, J., Knight, E.Q., & Varelas. M. (1993). Meaning, love, and self in the classroom. Teaching and Learning: Journal of Natural Inquiry, 8, 11-15
  15. Brinker, K. (1994) Linguistische Textanalyse / 이성만 역 (2004). 텍스트언어학의 이해: 언어학적 텍스트분석의 기본 개념과 방법, 한국문화사
  16. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentaion. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
  17. Dijk, T. A. v. (1997). The study of discourse. In Dijk, T. A. v. (Ed.), Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction-Discourse as structure and process (Vol. 1). SAGE Publication Ltd. (London): 1-34
  18. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osbome, J., (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84, 287-312 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  19. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  20. Eemeren, F. H. v & Grootendorst, R. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
  21. Eemeren, F. H. v., Grootendorst, R., Blaire, J. A., & Willard C. A. (1992). Argumentation Illuminated. International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, SICSAT
  22. Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985-1001 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310911
  23. Freely, A. J. (1996). Argumentation and Debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making (9th ed.), Belmont, C. A.: Wadsworth Publishing Company
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. The Falmer Press: London
  25. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290165
  26. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students'responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186-210 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10128
  27. Hodson, D. (1993). In science of a rationale for multi cultural science education. Science Education, 77(6), 685-711 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770611
  28. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodr uez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  29. Johns, A. M. (2002). Genre in the classroom: multiple perspectives. Mㅁ모: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  30. Kallberg, J. (1987). The rhetoric of genre: chopin's nocturne in C minor, Nineteenth Century Music, 9(1987-8), p.239
  31. Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137 - 157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
  32. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  33. Kuhn, D., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego: Academic Press, INC.
  34. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  35. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York: Academic Press, Inc
  36. Lemke, A. L. (1990). Talking science:language, learning, and values. New Jersey: Alex Publishing Corporation
  37. Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). Something to shoot for: a systemic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A.M. Jones (ED.), Genre in the classroom: multiple perspectives (pp.17-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  38. Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in science:Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp.166-202). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
  39. Martin, J. R., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987). Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson. In L. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 58-82). Centre for Studies in literary education. Geelong: Deakin University
  40. Newell, G. E., & Winograd, P. (1989). The effects of writing on learning from expository text. Written Communication, 6(2), 196-217 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006002004
  41. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Obsborne, J., (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  42. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its functional sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  43. National Research Council[NRC]. (1996). National Science Education Standards.National Academy Press, Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  44. National Research Council[NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press, Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  45. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  46. Osborne, J. F. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203-215 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559
  47. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students Perceptions of Writing for Learning in Secondary School Science. Science Education, 83(2), 151-162 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<151::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-S
  48. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  49. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press
  50. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, INC
  51. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to meanscientifically speaking: apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions (pp.170-193). London: Continuum
  52. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Case Studies of Ho Students'Argumentation Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge. Journal of Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
  53. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
  54. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
  55. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008