Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring Responsive Teaching's Effect on Students' Epistemological Framing in Small Group Argumentation

소집단 논변 활동에서 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍에 미치는 영향 탐색

  • Received : 2016.11.24
  • Accepted : 2017.02.20
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students' productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone's vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students' epistemological framing and the teacher's responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students' thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher's understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students' ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students' ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students' ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students' productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies to support students' productive framing in science classrooms.

본 연구는 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 생산적인 과학적 논변 실행에 미치는 영향을 탐색하였다. 중학교 2학년 학생 30명과 교사 1명이 본 연구에 참여하였고 자극과 반응 단원의 논변 수업을 진행하였다. 학생들은 측정 활동의 결과를 예상하고, 활동을 통해 결과를 얻고, 그 결과를 설명하기 위한 논변 활동을 진행하였다. 이 활동은 정수리, 척추, 손등 위에서 핸드폰 진동 감지 시간을 측정하는 것이었다. 연구자들은 수업에 대한 교사의 생각을 알고자 교사 인터뷰를 진행하였고, 각 소집단 활동과 교사 인터뷰를 녹음 녹화하였다. 녹음 기록을 전사하여 분석 자료로 활용하였으며, 소집단 논변 활동에서 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍과 교사의 반응적 교수 실행을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 교사는 반응적 지원의 시작점이 될 학생 사고를 이끌어내는 질문과 함께 소집단 실행에 개입하였다. 교사는 논변 수업에 대한 인식과 학생의 사고를 이해하고자 하는 태도에서 생산적 프레이밍을 드러냈으며, 이를 토대로 수업에서 학생들의 사고를 이끌어내며 논의의 활성화를 지원하였다. 그리고 교사는 평가자의 관점을 지양하고 학생의 아이디어에 반응하여 반박 발화를 함으로써 논변 활동의 일원으로 참여하였다. 교사는 이러한 참여를 통해 소집단 내의 인지적 권위 구조를 변화시켰으며, 학생들에게 논변 활동에서 기대하는 실행의 예시를 보여주어 생산적 프레이밍을 지원하였다. 이러한 교사의 반응적 교수 실행 결과 학생들은 생산적인 과학적 실행을 보였고, 이는 학생들의 변화된 인식론적 프레이밍에서 비롯된 것으로 보인다. 본 연구는 학생이 과학적 논변 활동에서 진정한 과학적 실행에 참여하도록 생산적 프레이밍을 지원하는 교사의 반응적 교수 전략을 구축하는 데에 기여할 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alvarado, C., Daane, A. R., Scherr, R. E., & Zavala, G. (2013). Responsiveness among peers leads to productive disciplinary engagement. Paper presented at 2013 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, Portland, OR. doi: 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.002
  2. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397. https://doi.org/10.1086/461730
  3. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39-51.
  4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  5. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
  6. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20440
  7. Colestock, A. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). What teachers notice when they notice student thinking. In A. D. Robertson, R. E., Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, (pp. 126-144). New York, NY: Routledge.
  8. Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students’ discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education. 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
  9. Cornelius, L. l., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_4
  10. diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
  11. 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
  12. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. E. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  13. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, (pp. 409-434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding student learning. London: Routledge.
  15. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  16. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434. https://doi.org/10.2307/749875
  17. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
  18. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  19. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  20. Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485-529. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1504_2
  21. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
  22. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3
  23. Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 1: Case studies of children's inquiries. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 279-299). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
  24. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfre of learning: Research and perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  25. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
  26. Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary-school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children's understanding of science-some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1-2), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01447339
  27. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011965830686
  28. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20373
  29. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 387-312.
  30. Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers' ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
  31. Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
  32. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  33. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  34. Lee, J. (2016). Understanding of small group students' productive practice in scientific argumentation focusing on the change of epistemological resources network(Master's thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  35. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
  36. Levin, D., & Richards, J. (2011). Learning to attend to the substance of students' thinking in science. Science Educator, 20(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9276-5
  37. Levin, D., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
  38. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20092
  39. Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.930707
  40. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 3(1), 57-60.
  41. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
  42. Maskiewicz, A. C. (2015). Navigating the challenges of teaching responsively. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Shcerr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, (pp. 105-125). New York, NY: Routledge.
  43. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  44. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  45. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.
  46. Richards, J. (2013). Exploring what stabilizes teachers' attention and responsiveness to the substance of students' scientific thinking in the classroom(Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland. Maryland, MD.
  47. Richards, J., & Robertson, A. D. (2015). A review of the research on responsive teaching in science and mathematics. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
  48. Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (Eds.) (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
  49. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2015). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10) 1571-1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21267
  50. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
  51. Sandoval, W. A., Daniszewski, K., Spillane, J. P., & Reiser, B. J. (1999). Teachers' discourse strategies for supporting learning through inquiry. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
  52. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
  53. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2
  54. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
  55. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  56. Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Windschitl, M., & Colley, C. (2015). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5).
  57. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Re-thinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1017

Cited by

  1. 소집단 과학 논변 활동에서 초임 교사의 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계 탐색 -프레이밍을 중심으로- vol.39, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.6.739
  2. 불확실함에서 벗어나기까지: "왜 강낭콩이 싹트지 않았을까?" 논변 활동에서 초등학생들의 정서-인지적 반박 vol.40, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.1.1
  3. 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
  4. 반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.268