Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploring Scientific Argumentation from Teacher-Student Interaction with Epistemological and Psychological Perspectives

교사-학생 상호작용간의 과학논증 탐색: 인식론 및 심리학적 관점으로

  • 박영신 (조선대학교 지구과학교육과)
  • Received : 2009.07.17
  • Accepted : 2010.02.17
  • Published : 2010.02.26
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore students' argumentation in perspectives of epistemology and psychology and to find out how teacher can promote students' abilities of developing argumentation. The 60 hours of lessons from the interaction between one science teacher (Mr. Physics, who had 35 years of teaching experience) and his 26 students were observed, transcribed, and analyzed using two different analyzing tools; one is from the perspective of epistemology and the other from the perspective of psychology, which can portray how argumentation is constructed. Mr. Physics created the environment where students could promote the quality of scientific argumentation through explicit teaching strategy, Claim-Evidence Approach. The low level of argumentation was portrayed through examples from students' prior knowledge or experience in the form of an Appeal to the instance operation and the Elaboration reasoning skill. Students' own claims were developed through application of knowledge in a different context in the form of an Induction operation and Generativity reasoning skill. Higher level of argumentation was portrayed through Consistency operation with other knowledge or experience and Explanation reasoning skills based on students' ideas with more active teacher's inputs. The teacher in this study played a role as a helper for students to enact identities as competent "sense makers," as an elaborator rather than evaluator to extend students' ideas, and as a mentor to foster and monitor the students' development of ideas of a higher quality. It is critical for teachers to understand the nature of argumentation, which in turn is connected to their explicit teaching strategy with the aim of providing opportunities where students can understand the science enterprise.

이 연구의 목적은 학생들의 논증을 인식론적 (사고과정) 및 심리학적 (사고유형) 관점에서 탐색하여 어떠한 사고과정 및 유형으로 교사가 학생들의 논증 형성 능력을 향상시키는지 알아보는 것이다. 35년의 교사경력을 지니고 있는 교사 및 그의 26명 학생의 과학수업 60시간을 관찰하고, 전사하였으며, 전사한 학생들의 논증이 어떻게 표현되는지를 두 개의 도구, 즉 인식론적 및 심리학적 관점으로 분석하였다. 이 연구 참여자인 교사는 학생들의 논증의 질을 향상 시키기 위하여 특별한 목적으로 개발한 명시적인 교수법 "주장-근거 교수법"을 수업 시간에 활용하였다. 논증을 두 개의 다른 관점으로 분석해 본 결과, "보기" 또는 "예"를 이용한 사고과정에서는 "정교성" 사고유형이 가장 빈번하게 사용되었다. 모든 탐구의 시작인 가설을 세우기 위해 학생들은 "귀납" 사고과정으로 "일반화" 사고유형을 통해 탐구의 시작단계인 본인들의 "주장"을 형성하였다. 좀 더 높은 수준의 논증은 다른 지식이나 경험을 통한 개념의 "일관성" 사고 과정을 통해 교사의 도움에 힘입어 학생들이 "설명"을 형성하였다. 이러한 높은 수준의 논증 기회에서 확인된 교사의 역할은 학생들이 스스로 논증을 형성할 수 잇도록 도와주는 조력자, 그리고 학생들의 논증을 평가하는 것이 아닌 좀더 학생들의 사고과정을 확장시켜 주는 정교자 (elaborator), 그리고 학생들의 논증 수준이 높아질 수 있도록 논증을 추적하여 발전시켜주는 멘토로 확인되었다. 논증 본성에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 교사들은 학생들이 과학의 참 의미를 이해 할 수 있도록, 논증 기회를 제공하는 명시적인 교수전략을 개발하는 것이 필수적이라 할 수 있겠다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexopoulou, E. and Driver, R., 1996, Small-group discussion in Physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099-1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993, Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, NY, USA, 418 p.
  3. Ash, D., 2006, Thematic continuities: Talking and thinking about adaptation in a socially complex classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, DOI 10.1002/tea.20199
  4. Crawford, B.A., 2000, Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
  5. Crawford, B.A., 2007, Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157
  6. Erduran, S., Simon, S., and Osborne, J., 2004, TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  7. Erduran, S. and Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., 2008, Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, Springer Press, Germany, 294 p.
  8. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B.K., and Pressley, M., 2000, Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
  9. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., and Duschl, R.A., 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
  10. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Diaz de Bustamante, J., and Duschl, R.A., 1998, Scientific culture and school culture: Epistemic and procedural components. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
  11. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. and Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., 1997, Argument in high school genetics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.
  12. Jung, W-Y., Lee, J-Y., Park, E-J., Kim, C-J., and Lee, S-K., 2009, Interaction patterns in dialogic inquiry of middle school students in small group in the natural history gallery. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 30, 909-920. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2009.30.7.909
  13. Kim, H. and Song, J., 2004, The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students’ argumentation. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 24, 1216-1234.
  14. Klahr, D. and Dunbar, K., 1988, Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
  15. Kuhn, D., 1986, Education for thinking. Teachers College Record, 87, 495-511.
  16. Kuhn, D., 1989, Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674
  17. Lee, S.-K. and Hewson, P.W., 2004, Research Article: The Relationship between Argumentation and the Conceptual Change Model in a Science Teacher’s Explanations. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 24, 709-721.
  18. Lotter, C., Harwood, W.S. and Bonner, J.J., 2007, The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, DOI 10.1002/tea.20191.
  19. National Research Council, 1996, National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 262 p.
  20. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 410 p.
  21. Oh, J-A., Lee, S-K., and Kim, C-J., 2008, A Case Study on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentative, Communication in Earth Science MBL Classes. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 29, 189-203. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2008.29.2.189
  22. Park, Y-S. and Flick, L., 2004, Students Opportunities to Develop Scientific Argumentation in the Context of Scientific Inquiry: A Review of Literature. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 25, 194-204.
  23. Park, Y-S., Flick, L., Patricia, D.M., and Wainwright, C., 2004, Student Teachers and Beginning Teachers` Understandings of Scientific Inquiry. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 25, 160-175.
  24. Park, Y-S., 2006, Theoretical Study on the Opportunity of Scientific Argumentation for Implementing Authentic Scientific Inquiry. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27, 401-415.
  25. Park, Y-S., 2008, Analyzing Science Teachers’ Understandings about Scientific Argumentation in terms of Scientific Inquiry. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 28, 211-226.
  26. Reif, F. and Larkin, J.H., 1991, Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 733-760. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280904
  27. Resnick, L.B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C.M., Wathen, S.H., and Holowchak, M., 1993, Reasoning in Conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1993.9649029
  28. Richmond, G. and Striley, J., 1996, Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  29. Siegel, H., 1995, Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17, 159-176.
  30. Siegel, H., 2006, Epistemological diversity and education research: Much ado about nothing much? Educational Researcher, 35, 3-12.
  31. Toulmin, S.E., 1958, The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 324 p.

Cited by

  1. Trends in Research Studies on Scientific Argument and Writing in Korea vol.34, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0107
  2. Issues and Effects in Developing Inquiry-Based Argumentation Task for Science Teachers: A Case of Charles' Law Experiment vol.34, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0079