Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Elementary Students' Cognitive-Emotional Rebuttals in Their Modeling Activity: Focusing on Epistemic Affect

모형 구성 과정에서 나타나는 초등학생의 인지, 감정적 반박 -인식적 감정을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2017.01.24
  • Accepted : 2017.02.20
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates how elementary students used cognitive-emotional rebuttals in the context of modeling activities, especially on how their emotional and cognitive processes lead them to use rebuttals in terms of epistemic affect. Twenty-five fifth grade elementary students participated in the study as part of their science class. During the course of their sixth periods, students constructed a human respiratory system model through continuous discussion. The research results showed that elementary students used an elaboration-oriented rebuttal, a defence-oriented rebuttal, and a blame-oriented rebuttal in their modeling activity. The elaboration-oriented rebuttal interspersed with negative epistemic affect was used to elaborate on a student's explanation, and a negative epistemic affect was elicited from their cognitive discrepancy. On the other hand, defence-oriented rebuttal and blame-oriented rebuttal entangled with negative epistemic affect were used to defeat the students rather than help rigor evaluation of students' explanation, and the negative epistemic affect was elicited from the other students' undesirable behavior. These results suggest that students' rebuttals can be elicited by epistemic dynamics related to the epistemic affect. The study shows that if negative epistemic affect were elicited from the other students' naive or false explanations, such an emotion is natural in terms of model construction, and the model can be further developed through the acceptance of the elaboration-oriented rebuttals by students' emotion regulation. In addition, we suggest that negative emotions aroused from the worsening of relationships during small group modeling activities are difficult to regulate and can have negative effects on students' cooperative model construction.

본 연구는 초등학생들이 모형 구성 과정에서 어떻게 인지, 감정적 반박을 사용했는지, 특히 그들의 감정과 인지적 과정이 어떻게 상호 작용하여 반박이 나타나게 되었는지 탐색한 것이다. 초등학교 5학년, 25명이 과학 수업의 일환으로 연구에 참여하였다. 6차시 동안 학생들은 지속적인 논의를 통해 인간 호흡 운동 시스템 모형을 구성하였다. 연구 결과에 따르면 초등학생들은 모형 구성 과정에서 정교화형 반박, 방어형 반박, 비난형 반박을 사용하였다. 인지적 비형형 상태와 연관된 부정적 인식적 감정과 인지적 과정의 상호작용을 통해 나타난 정교화형 반박은 소집단 모형을 정교화하는데 도움을 주었다. 반면 관계 악화와 관련된 부정적 인식적 감정과 인지적 과정의 상호작용을 통해 나타난 방어형 반박과 비난형 반박은 모형의 정교화를 이끌기보다는 다른 학생들의 제안, 설명을 배제하거나 공격하기 위해 사용되었고, 이 때의 부정적 인식적 감정은 다른 학생들의 바람직하지 않은 행동에 의해 생성되었다. 연구 결과는 학생들의 반박이 인식적 감정과 관련된 인식론적 역동에 의해 나타나게 됨을 보여준다. 본 연구는 학생들의 초보적, 수정될 필요가 있는 설명으로부터 부정적 인식적 감정이 생성되는 것은 모형 구성 과정에서 모형 발달을 돕는 정교화형 반박이 나타나게 되는 측면에서는 자연스러운 것이며, 정교화형 반박을 수용하도록 돕는 학생들의 감정 조절은 모형을 발달시키는데 도움이 될 수 있음을 논의한다. 또한 관계의 악화로 인해 나타날 수 있는 부정적 인식적 감정은 초등학생이 조절하기 어려우며, 이것이 협력적 모형 구성을 어렵게 할 수 있음을 제언한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alsop, S. (2005). Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering Affect in the Teaching and Learning of Science. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
  2. Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1043-1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052180
  3. Bellocchi, A., Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., King, D., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2014). Emotional climate and high quality learning experiences in science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1301-1325. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21170
  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. Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students'affective processes in the classroom. In Schutz, P. A., & Pekrun, R. (Eds.) Emotion in education, (pp. 37-56). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
  6. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
  7. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  8. Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  9. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Shocken.
  10. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. CA, US: Sage publications.
  11. DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9026-4
  12. Feynman, R. P. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
  13. Forbes, C. T., Zangori, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2015). Empirical validation of integrated learning performances for hydrologic phenomena: 3rd‐ grade students' model‐driven explanation‐construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 895-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21226
  14. Gordon, S. L. (1981). The sociology of sentiments and emotion (pp. 562-592). New York: Basic Books.
  15. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
  16. Han, M. H., & Kim, H. B. (2013). The role of teacher's question prompt in elementary students' "Food Web" modeling. Biology Education, 41(2), 296-309. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.2.296
  17. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., & Jordan, R. (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 6-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21187
  19. Immordino‐Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, brain, and education, 1(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
  20. Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21202
  21. Jaber, L. Z., Robertson, A., Scherr, R., & Hammer, D. (2015). Attending to students' epistemic affect. Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics, 162.
  22. Johnson, S. K., & Stewart, J. (2002). Revising and assessing explanatory models in a high school genetics class: A comparison of unsuccessful and successful performance. Science Education, 86(4), 463-480. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10015
  23. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 4(1), 39-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
  24. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers' views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142
  25. Kang, E. H., Kim, C. J., Choi S. U., Yoo, J. H., Park, H. J, Lee, S. Y, & Kim, H. B. (2012). Small group interaction and norms in the process of constructing a model for blood flow in the heart. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(2), 372-387. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.2.372
  26. Kawasaki, K., Herrenkohl, L., & Yeary, S. A. (2004). Theory building and modeling in a sinking and floating unit: A case study of third and fourth grade students’ developing epistemologies of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1299-1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000177226
  27. Kershner, R.,Warwick, P., Mercer, N.,&Kleine Staarman, J. (2012). Primary children''s management of themselves and others in collaborative group work: ''Sometimes it takes patience..." Education 3-13, 42(2), 201-216.
  28. Kim H. K. & Lee. N. R. (2016). Exploring the Pre-service Science Teachers' Emotional Experience, Display Rules, and Controlling Strategies During Teaching Practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 36(2), 231-251. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0231
  29. King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally intense science activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1886-1914. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1055850
  30. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. NY: The camebridge university press.
  31. Kwon, J. S. & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring Small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment: Focusing on Students’ Epistemic Goals and Epistemic Considerations for Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  32. Lee, J. S. (2014). Reason and emotion : Discussions on the human judgment process with brain neuroscience and biology perspectives. Korean Society for Journalism & Communication studies, 10(3), 161-194.
  33. Lee, C. E., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Understanding the role of wonderment questions related to activation of conceptual resources in conceptual resources in scientific model construction: focusing on students' epistemological framing and positional framing. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 36(3), 471-483. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0471
  34. Lee, S. Y., Kim, C. J., Choi, S. U., Yoo, J. H., Park, H. J., Kang, E. H., & Kim, H. B.. (2012). Exploring the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(5), 805-822. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.805
  35. Lin, Y.-R., & Hung, J.-F. (2016). The analysis and reconciliation of students’rebuttals in argumentation activities. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 130-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1134848
  36. Liu, L., & Hmelo‐Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 1023-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20297
  37. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Conceptual representation embodied in hypermedia: An approach to promoting knowledge co-construction. In Khine M.S., & Saleh, I. M. (Eds.), New Science of Learning (pp. 341-356). NY: Springer.
  38. Lorimer, J. (2008). Counting corncrakes the affective science of the UK Corncrake Census. Social studies of science, 38(3), 377-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312707084396
  39. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2011). In Quest of productive modeling‐based learning discourse in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20435
  40. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  41. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  42. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Is' exploratory talk' productive talk? In Light P., & Littelton, K. (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 79-99). London: Routledge.
  43. Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577842
  44. Pekrun, R. (2000). A social-cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In Heckhausen, J. (Ed). (2000). Motivational psychology of human development: Developing motivation and motivating development (pp. 143-163). NY, US: Elsevier Science.
  45. Plantin, C. (2004). On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation. Amsterdam Studies in the theory and history of linguistic science series 4, 247-276.
  46. Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive science, 11(4), 481-518. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
  47. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  48. Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science Education, 91(6), 948-966. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20224
  49. Shott, S. (1979). Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1317-1334. https://doi.org/10.1086/226936
  50. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2005). Multimodal interaction. Special Issue of Semiotica, 156(1/4), 1-20.
  51. Sinatra, G. M., Broughton, S. H., & Lombardi, D. (2014). Emotions in science education. In Pekrun R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 415-436). NY: Routledge.
  52. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
  53. Stryker, S. (2004). Integrating emotion into identity theory. Advances in group processes, 21, 1-23.
  54. Thamm, R. (2004). Towards a universal power and status theory of emotion. Advances in group processes, 21, 189-222.
  55. Tobin, K., Ritchie, S. M., Oakley, J. L., Mergard, V., & Hudson, P. (2013). Relationships between emotional climate and the fluency of classroom interactions. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9125-y
  56. Tomas, L., Rigano, D., & Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Students' regulation of their emotions in a science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 234-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21304
  57. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Turner, J. H. (2009). The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1(4), 340-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909338305
  59. Vo, T., Forbes, C. T., Zangori, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2015). Fostering Third-Grade Students' Use of Scientific Models with the Water Cycle: Elementary teachers'conceptions and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2411-2432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1080880
  60. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
  61. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
  62. Yoo, Y. J., & Oh, P. S. (2016). Effects of modeling-based science inquiry instruction on elementary students’ learning in the unit of seasonal changes. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 35(2), 265-276. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2016.35.2.265

Cited by

  1. 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
  2. Passive elementary student's constructed epistemic emotions and patterns of participation during small group scientific modeling vol.105, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21665