Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Epistemic Level in Middle School Students' Small-Group Argumentation Using First-Hand or Second-Hand Data

데이터 출처 유형에 따른 중학생의 소집단 논변활동의 인식론적 수준

  • Received : 2013.01.16
  • Accepted : 2013.03.02
  • Published : 2013.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is conducted to examine how epistemic reasoning and argument structures of students vary according to data sources used in the process of argumentation implemented in the context of inquiry. To this end, three argument tasks using first-hand data and three argument tasks using second-hand data were developed and applied to the unit on 'Nutrition of Plants' for first year middle school students. According to the results of this study, epistemic reasoning of students manifested during the process of argumentation and varied according to data sources. While most students composed explanations with phenomenon-based or relation-based reasoning in argumentation using first-hand data, all the small groups composed explanations that included model-based reasoning in argumentation using second-hand data. In the case of arguments including phenomenon-based or relation-based reasoning, students described only observable characteristics, with warrants omitted from arguments in many cases. On the other hand, in the case of arguments that included model-based reasoning, explanations were composed by combining the results of observations with theoretical knowledge, with warrants more apparent in their arguments.

본 연구는 탐구 맥락에서 실시된 논변활동 과정에서 학생들이 이용하는 데이터 출처에 따라 학생의 인식론적 추론과 논변의 구조가 어떻게 달라지는지 알아보기 위해 수행되었다. 이를 위해 중학교 1학년 '식물의 영양' 단원에서 1차 데이터를 이용하는 3가지 논변 과제와 2차 데이터를 이용하는 3가지 논변 과제를 개발하여 적용하였다. 연구 결과, 논변활동 과정에서 나타난 학생들의 인식론적 추론은 데이터 출처에 따라 다르게 나타났다. 1차 데이터를 이용한 논변활동에서는 대부분 현상기반추론이나 관계기반추론을 통해 설명을 구성하였지만 2차 데이터를 이용한 논변활동에서는 모든 소집단이 모형기반추론을 포함하여 설명을 구성해 나갔다. 현상기반추론이나 관계기반추론을 바탕으로 작성된 논변의 경우, 학생들은 관찰 가능한 특징만을 기술하였고 논변에서 보장이 생략되는 경우가 많았다. 반면 모형기반추론을 포함한 논변의 경우 관찰 결과를 이론 지식과 결합하여 설명을 구성해가고 논변에서 보장이 보다 잘 드러났다. 그리고 이 때, 소집단 내에서는 더욱 다양한 아이디어가 제안되었고 이에 대한 평가 맥락이 형성되면서 논변활동을 더욱 자극하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's image of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  2. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  3. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Fourth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  4. Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: Exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180702
  5. Hug, B. & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: Does data type influence classroom conversations? International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1725-1751. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701506945
  6. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000)". Doing the lesson"or" doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757 792
  7. Kelly, G. J. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument : an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3). 314- 342.
  8. Kelly, G. J., Drucer, S. & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
  9. Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2012). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratoryexploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527-2558.
  10. National Research Council (1996). National Science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  11. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science education standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  12. Newton, P., Dirver, R., & Osborne, 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
  13. Pera, M. (1994). The discourse of Science. trans. C. Botsford. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  14. Schauble, L. Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students'transition form an engineering model to a science model of experiment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280910
  15. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students'understanding of the objectives and procedure of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1
  16. Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Walton, D. M. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 87, 399-419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
  18. Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students'discussion in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 24-45.

Cited by

  1. Exploring Small Group Argumentation and Epistemological Framing of Gifted Science Students as Revealed by the Analysis of Their Responses to Anomalous Data vol.35, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0419
  2. Understanding students’ knowledge construction and scientific argumentation according to the level of openness in inquiry and the abstraction level of scientific knowledge vol.43, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2015.43.1.50
  3. 실험 설계에서 나타난 소집단 논변활동 탐색: 활동에 대한 인식적 목표와 인식적 이해를 중심으로 vol.36, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  4. 중학교 과학 교과서의 탐구활동에 의한 학생들의 개념 구성 지원 가능성 탐색 vol.45, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.3.371
  5. 중등 과학교육에서 소집단을 활용한 교수학습 연구 분석 및 '소집단 연구' 방법론 고찰 vol.45, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.3.437
  6. 머신 러닝을 활용한 과학 논변 구성 요소 코딩 자동화 가능성 탐색 연구 vol.38, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.219
  7. 비생산적 논변에서 생산적 논변으로의 실행 변화 탐색 -인식론적 자원과 맥락을 중심으로- vol.41, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.3.193