Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Methodological Review of the Research on Argumentative Discourse Focused on Analyzing Collaborative Construction and Epistemic Enactments of Argumentation

논증 담화 분석 연구의 방법론적 고찰: 논증활동의 협력적 구성과 인식적 실행의 분석을 중심으로

  • Received : 2013.04.02
  • Accepted : 2013.06.13
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin's argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin's argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants' collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMEs and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the flow of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.

이 연구는 과학 수업에서 논증 담화를 분석하기 위한 대안적 방법들을 제안했던 최근의 주요 선행 연구들을 논증활동의 협력적 구성과 인식적 실행의 측면에서 방법론적으로 고찰하였다. 또한, 선행 연구들에서 사용된 논증 담화 분석 방법의 성과와 제한점을 바탕으로 새로운 논증 담화 분석 방법을 제안하고, 이 논증 담화 분석법을 실제 과학 수업의 논증 담화에 적용하여 그것의 활용 가능성을 알아보았다. 연구를 위해 과학 수업의 논증 담화에 대한 선행 연구 중 Toulmin의 논증 틀을 논증 담화 분석에 적용한 연구, 논증의 구조, 내용, 및 정당화 과정을 종합적으로 조사하는 논증 담화 분석 방법을 모색한 연구, 그리고 논증 담화의 증거에 기반한 추론 과정을 강조한 연구들을 선정하였다. 또한, 담화 레지스터와 증거-설명의 연속선에 기반한 대안적 논증 담화 분석 방법으로서 DREEC을 고안하였고, DREEC을 수업 담화 사례에 적용하였다. 연구 결과, 선행 연구들에 사용된 논증 담화 분석 방법들은 주로 Toulmin의 논증 틀에서 제시한 논증 구성 요소의 유무에 근거하여 논증의 구조를 파악하였다. 이러한 접근은 논증 담화의 정량적 분석 및 비교는 가능한 반면, 논증의 정당화 과정 및 인식적 실행의 전개 과정에 기반한 논증의 질적 기술 및 비교가 어려웠고, 논증 담화 참여자들의 협력적 논증 구성 과정을 구체적으로 보여주지 못하는 한계가 있었다. 반면에 DREEC은 주제부/설명부 간에 형성된 연결 관계와 자료, 증거, 패턴, 및 설명에 이르는 연결 관계를 통해 논증의 협력적 구성과, 인식적 실행의 흐름에 기반하여 논증의 정당화 과정을 분석할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의과정을 강조한 교수.학습전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 450-461.
  2. 김희경, 송진웅 (2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형의 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지,24(6), 1216-1234.
  3. 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Hand, B. (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),922-936.
  4. 맹승호, 신명환, 차현정, 함석진, 신현정, 김찬종(2010). 지구과학 논문의 언어 특성 이해: 레지스터 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 31(7), 785-797.
  5. 박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증 기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국지구과학회지, 27(4), 401-415.
  6. 양일호, 이효정, 이효녕, 조현준 (2009). 과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 203-220.
  7. 이선경, 이선경, 김찬종, 김희백 (2005). 비형식적 과학 학습 자료의 시나리오 및 논증 구조: 영국 자연사박물관의 공룡관의 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(7),849-866.
  8. 이은경, 강성주 (2008). 학생-학생 언어적 상호작용분석을 통한 문제 해결형 탐구 모듈에서의 SWH 활용 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 130-138.
  9. 이정아, 맹승호, 김찬종 (2008). 과학수업담화의 새로운 독법: 교수학적 담화분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),832-847.
  10. 이주연, 이정아, 김찬종 (2010). 자연사 박물관에서 관람객의 학습을 중재하는 도슨트의 담화 특성에 대한 사례연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(6), 815-835.
  11. 차현정, 김찬종, 맹승호 (2011). 장르와 레지스터 분석에서 나타난 중학생의 지구과학 주제 글쓰기의 언어적 특징. 한국지구과학회지, 32(1), 84-98.
  12. 최문영, 맹승호, 박은지, 정원영, 김찬종 (2012). 관람대화의 흐름과 상호작용의 양상에 기반한 자연사 전시관의 전시물과 관람객 간 상호작용적 학습 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(7), 1251-1268.
  13. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc. On behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.
  14. Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-ellaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  15. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities'adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
  16. Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530551
  17. Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. New York, NY: Continuum.
  18. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  19. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
  20. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  21. Duschl, R. A. (2003a). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Arlingon, VA: NSTA Press.
  22. Duschl, R. A. (2003b). The assessment of argumentation and explanation: Creating and supporting teachers'feedback strategies. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 139-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  23. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  24. 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
  25. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.
  26. Erduran, S., & Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspective from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  27. 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, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  28. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20482
  29. Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
  30. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London, UK: Continuum.
  31. Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Amold.
  32. Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & 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
  33. Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  34. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<883::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I
  35. Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world. (pp. 145-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  36. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. , 86, 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  37. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
  38. Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137-157). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  39. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students'scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2
  40. Maeng, S., & Kim, C-J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students'pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95(3), 431-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20429
  41. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  42. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  43. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Washington DC:National Academy Press.
  44. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 17-37). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
  45. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  46. Resnick, L. B., Saljo, R., Pontecorvo, C., & Burge, B. (1997). Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
  47. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education:Current perspectives and recommendations for future direction. Science Education, 92, 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  48. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  49. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.
  50. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281

Cited by

  1. 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
  2. Development of an Analytical Framework for Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: Based on Discourse Clusters and Schemes vol.35, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0509
  3. 공통맥락 형성의 관점에서 살펴본 마찰력에 대한 소집단 토론의 특징 vol.37, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0301
  4. 초등 과학 영재 학생들의 자연선택 개념 이해를 위한 논변 활동에서 나타난 인식적 이해와 논변활동 수준 분석 vol.37, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.565
  5. 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
  6. 과학 학습의 지식구성 과정에 대한 실제적 인식론 분석 vol.37, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.2.173
  7. 초등학생들의 소집단 과학 논의 활동에 나타나는 인식적 고려사항 탐색 vol.39, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.59
  8. 기계 학습을 활용한 논증 수준 자동 채점 및 논증 패턴 분석 vol.41, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.3.203