Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Enhancing the Quality of Students' Argumentation and Characteristics of Students' Argumentation in Different Contexts

과학적 논의과정 활동을 통한 학생들의 논의과정 변화 및 논의상황에 따른 논의과정 특성

  • Published : 2009.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate middle school students' processes of argumentation in science lessons and to compare students' argumentation in different contexts (socioscientific context/scientific context). An argumentation-based teaching-learning strategy was used to enhance quality in students' arguments in science lessons. Data were collected from five lessons by video- and audio-recording eight groups of four students each engaging in argumentation. The quality and frequency of students' argumentation was analyzed using an assessment framework based on the work of Toulmin. The findings showed that: (a) there was improvement in the quality of students' argumentation; (b) there were no differences in the structure of argumentation and percentage of explanatory argumentation components as well as dialogic argumentation components in different argumentation contexts. The results of this study showed that students' argumentation can be enhanced with strategic argumentation teaching-learning.

이 연구에서는 중학교 과학 수업에서 논의과정 교수 학습 전략에 따라 과학적 상황에서의 논의과정 수업을 실시한 후, 학생들의 논의과정의 질에 있어서 향상이 있는지를 알아보고, 또한 논의상황에 따라 논의과정에 어떤 차이가 있는지 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 남녀공학 중학교 1학년 2개 반 학생을 3-4명이 한 조를 이루도록 8개조로 나누고 논의전략과 상황을 달리하여 논의과정 수업을 실시하였다. 그 결과 학생들의 논의과정의 질에 있어서 향상이 있음을 보여주었다. 논의과정의 구조와 설명적, 대화적 논의과정 요소의 사용 비율에 있어서는 논의상황에 따른 차이를 보이지 않았으나, 전체 논의과정 요소의 사용 빈도와 일부 논의과정 요소의 사용에 있어서는 논의상황에 따른 차이를 나타내었다. 즉, 전체 논의과정 요소의 사용 빈도는 사회과학적 상황에서 더 높은 것으로 나타났고, 반증과 근거반박의 경우는 사회과학적 상황에서 높은 비율을 보였으나 요청과 요청응답의 경우는 과학적 상황에서 높게 나타났다. 이상의 연구 결과로 볼 때, 학생들의 논의과정이 과학적 상황과 사회과학적 상황의 특성에 따라 차이를 나타내지만 계획된 논의과정 수업에 의해 질적으로 향상이 가능한 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강순민 (2004). 과학적 맥락의 논의 과제 해결 과정에서 나타나는 논의과정 요소의 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위 논문
  2. 강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의과정을 강조한 교수${\cdot}$학습 전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 450-461
  3. 김미자 (2002). 논증 구조 활용을 통한 토론 능력신장 방안, 국어교육, 광주교육대학교, 제14집, 1-24
  4. 민병곤 (2005). 6, 9, 10학년 학습자의 소집단 토론에 대한 질적 분석 및 교육적 시사. 국어교육 116, 67-104
  5. Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. R. (1986). Effects of prior knowledge activitation modes and text structure on nonscience majors' comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 97-102
  6. Anderson, T., Howe, C., Soden, R.,Halliday, J., & Low, J. (2001). Peer interactionand the learning of critical thinking skills infurther education students, InstructionalScience, 29, 1-32 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026471702353
  7. Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: Arhetorical approach to social psychology. UK:Cambridge University Press
  8. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J.(2000). Establishing the norms of scientificargumentation in classroom. ScienceEducation, 84(3), 287-312 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  9. Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation and moral development. Annul Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665
  10. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B.,Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., O'Boyle, C.,& Suh, K. (1994). The relations of emotionalityand regulation to dispositional and contextalempathy-related responding. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 66, 776-797 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.776
  11. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part Ⅰ: Socialcognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230803
  12. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part Ⅱ: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230804
  13. Guzetti, B. J., Synder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education to promote conceptual change in science. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-161 https://doi.org/10.2307/747886
  14. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecologicalreasoning while making an environmentalmanagement decision. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 39, 341-368 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
  15. Hynd, C. R., Alvermann, D. E., & Qian, G.(1997). Preservice elementary school teachers'conceptual changes about projectile motion:Refutation text, demonstration, affectivefactors, and relevance. Science Education, 81,1-27 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199701)81:1<1::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-M
  16. Hynd, C. R., McNish, M., Qian, G., Keith,M., & Lay, K. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 933-946 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310908
  17. Kolstф, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy forcitizenship: Tools for dealing with the sciencedimension of controversial socioscientificissues. Science Education, 85, 291-310 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  18. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence:The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  19. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago. University of Chicago Press
  20. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  21. Kuhn, D.(1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178 https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
  22. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Whoreasons well? The studies of informalreasoning among children of different grade,ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition andInstruction, 14, 139-178 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
  23. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.) (1998).Beyond 2000: Science education for the future.London: King's College School of Education
  24. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J.(1999). The place of argumentation in thepedagogy of school science. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 21, 553-576 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  25. Norris, S., & Philips, L. (2003). How literacyin its fundamental sense is central to scientificliteracy. Science Education, 87, 224-240 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  26. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., &Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70
  27. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality ofargumentation in school science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  28. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou,V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decisionmaking on a scio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290408
  29. Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B.(1991). Every reasoning and the roots ofintelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J.W. Segal (Eds), Informal reasoning andeducation (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  30. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientificdiscovery. London. Hutchinson
  31. Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in youngminds. London: David Fulton
  32. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy.The Science Educator, 13, 39-48
  33. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler,D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of thenature of science in response to asocioscientific issue. International Journal ofScience Education 26, 387-409 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
  34. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005).Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Contextof Socioscientific Decision Making. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  35. Siebert, E. D., & McIntosh, W. J. (Eds.)(2001). College pathways to the scienceeducation standards. Arlington, VA: NSTAPress
  36. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  37. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001).Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016058
  38. Wood, N. V. (2001). Perspective on Argument(3th). Prentice Hall
  39. Zeidler, D. L. (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68, 411-419 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730680406
  40. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The roleof moral reasoning and the status ofsocioscientific issuses in science education:Philosophical, psychological and pedagogicalconsiderations. In D. L. Zeidler(Ed.), The roleof reasoning and discourse on socioscientificissues in science education(pp. 7-38).Dordrecht: Kluwer
  41. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: Aresearch-based framework for socioscientificissues education. Science Education, 89(3),357-377 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  42. Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984).Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210102
  43. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A.,& Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views:Beliefs in the nature of science and responsesto socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education,86, 343-367 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025
  44. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fosteringstudents' knowledge and argumentation skillsthough dilemmas in human genetics. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008