DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Scientific Reasoning Differences in Science Writing of Elementary School Students by Grades

초등학생들의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 과학적 추론의 학년별 차이

  • Received : 2018.11.05
  • Accepted : 2018.12.05
  • Published : 2018.12.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the science reasoning differences of elementary school students' science writing. For this purpose, science writing activities and analysis frameworks were developed. Science writing data were collected and analyzed. Third to sixth grade elementary students were selected from a middle high level elementary school in terms of a national achievement test in Seoul. A total of 320 writing materials were analyzed. The results of the analysis were as follows. Science writings show science reasoning at 52 % for $3^{rd}$ grade, 68% for $4^{th}$ grade, 85% for $5^{th}$ grade, and 89% for $6^{th}$ grade. Three types of scientific reasoning such as inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning appeared in science writing of the third to sixth graders. The abductive reasoning appeared very low in comparing with inductive and deductive reasoning. Level three appeared the most frequently in the science writing of the elementary students. The levels of inductive and deductive reasoning in science writing increased according to increasing grade and showed statistical differences between grades. But the levels of abductive reasoning did not show an increasing aspect according to increasing grade and also did not show statistical differences between grades. The levels of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning of the 3rd grade was very low in comparing with the other grades.

이 연구의 목적은 초등학생들의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 과학적 추론의 학년별 차이를 분석하는 것이다. 이를 위해 과학 글쓰기 활동지와 분석틀을 개발하였다. 국가수준의 성취도 평가 중상위 수준의 서울 지역의 한 초등학교 3학년부터 6학년 학생들에게 개발한 과학글쓰기활동을 하도록 하여, 총 320명의 과학 글쓰기 자료를 수집하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 3학년 학생들의 글 중 52%, 4학년 학생들의 글 중 68%, 5학년 학생들의 글 중 85%, 그리고 6학년 학생들의 글 중 89%가 과학적 추론을 포함하고 있었다. 초등학생들이 쓴 과학 글에는 귀납적 추론, 연역적 추론, 귀추적 추론과 같은 세 가지 유형의 과학적 추론이 포함되어 있었다. 귀추적 추론이 나타난 글은 귀납적 추론이나 연역적 추론에 비해 상대적으로 매우 적었다. 그리고 과학적 추론 수준에서는 각 과학적 추론 유형별로 3 수준의 글이 가장 많았다. 귀납적 추론과 연역적 추론에서는 학년이 올라감에 따라 점점 높은 수준의 글을 썼으나, 귀추적 추론에서는 그러한 경향이 나타나지 않았다. 학년별로 귀납적 추론, 연역적 추론, 귀추적 추론에 의한 글이 모두 나타났다. 귀납적 추론과 연역적 추론 수준은 통계적으로 유의한 학년별 차이를 나타내었다. 그러나 귀추적 추론 수준은 통계적으로 유의한 학년별 차이를 나타내지 않았다. 3학년의 귀납적 추론과 연역적 추론 수준은 다른 학년과 비교하여 많이 낮은 편이었다.

Keywords

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Procedure of developing science writing activity

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Level 5 of inductive reasoning(Lim & Kim, 2018)

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. Level 5 of deductive reasoning(Lim & Kim, 2018)

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 4. Level 5 of abductive reasoning(Lim & Kim, 2018)

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0005.png 이미지

Figure 5. Scientific reasoning levels by scientific reasoning types

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0006.png 이미지

Figure 6. Differences of Inductive reasoning levels by grades

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0007.png 이미지

Figure 7. Differences of deductive reasoning levels by grades

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_f0008.png 이미지

Figure 8. Differences of abductive reasoning levels by grades

Table 1. Information of participants

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Operational definition of scientific reasoning types

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Operational definition of subcategories by scientific reasoning types

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Performance levels by scientific reasoning types

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Ratio of elementary school students' scientific reasoning

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Differences by grades of scientific reasoning ratio

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Scientific reasoning types by grades

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. Scientific reasoning levels by grades

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0008.png 이미지

Table 9. Inductive reasoning level differences by grades

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0009.png 이미지

Table 10. Deductive reasoning level differences by grades

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0010.png 이미지

Table 11. Abductive reasoning level differences by grades

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_839_t0011.png 이미지

References

  1. Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. in cognitive processes in writing, L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg, editors, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 73-93.
  2. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Choi, B., Han, H., Shin, A., Kim, S., & Park, J. (2003). Effects of a cognitive acceleration program on primary school students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 22(1), 1-14.
  4. Chun, J. & Son, J. (2004). A type analysis of creative thinking abilities in science writing - with focus on middle school science textbooks. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 7(2), 285-304. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2004.7.2.285
  5. Cooper, J. D. & Kiger, N. D. (2008). Literacy assessment: Helping teachers plan instruction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
  6. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. (translated by Y. Kang, S. Ko, O. Kwon, H. Ryu, M. Park, J. Bang, J. Lee. I. Jeong, & W. Hwang, Seoul: Kyowusa, 2005.)
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, Inc. (translated by H. Cho, S. Jeong, J. Kim, & J. Kwon, Seoul: Hakjisa, 2010).
  9. Eames, K. & Loewenthal, K. (1990). Effects of handwriting and examiner's expertise on assessment of essays. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(6), 831-833. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924637
  10. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
  11. Fairclough, N. (2004). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 6, 121-138.
  12. Fehring, R. J. (1987). Methods to validate nursing diagnoses. Nursing Faculty Research and Publications, 27, 1-9.
  13. Fischer, H. R. (2001). Abductive reasoning as a way of worldmaking. Foundations of Science, 6(4), 361-383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011671106610
  14. Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
  15. Greenstein, G. (2013). Writing is thinking: Using writing to teach science. Astronomy Education Review, 12(1).
  16. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001
  17. Han, S. (2004). Vygotsky and education: Cultural-historical approach. Seoul: Kyoyukkoahaksa.
  18. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2006). When science and literacy meet in the secondary learning space: Implementing the science writing heuristic (SWH). University of Iowa.
  19. Jang, J. Y. & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 1-19.
  20. Jang, S. (2015). The critical discourse analysis(CDA) study of the Korean education contents. Journal of Research on Korean Education, 59, 213-244.
  21. Joung, Y. & Song, J. (2006a). Exploring the implications of Peirce's abduction in science education by theoretical investigation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(6), 703-722.
  22. Joung, Y. & Song, J. (2006b). The Features of the hypotheses generated by pre-service elementary teachers using the form of Peirce's abduction. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 25(2), 126-140.
  23. Ka, E. (2011). A study on the aspects and characteristics of writing development. Ph. D. dissertation. Korea National University of Education.
  24. Kang, S., Jo, J., & Noh, T. (2013). A study on writing process components and writing strategies in argumentative writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1418-1430. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1418
  25. Keys, C. W. (1999a). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1044::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J
  26. Keys, C. W. (1999b). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  27. Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6
  28. Kim, N. (2015). Reading strategies and text analysis using critical discourse analysis(CDA). Journal of Reading Research, 35, 319-342. https://doi.org/10.17095/JRR.2015.35.11
  29. Ku, K. (1993). A study on Vygotsky's theory of the development of verbal thinking: Implications for literacy and writing. Journal of Research of Dae Shin College, 13, 21-42.
  30. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., O'Loughlin, M., Schauble, L., Leadbeater, B., & Yotive, W. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Academic Press.
  31. Kwon, Y., Choi, S., Park, Y., & Jeong, J. (2003). Scientific thinking types and processes generated in inductive inquiry by college students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(3), 286-298.
  32. Kwon, Y., Yang, I,, & Chung, W. (2000). An explorative analysis of hypothesis - generation by pre-service science teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(1), 29-42.
  33. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  34. Lee, J. & Jeong, E. (2013a). Development of an evaluation tool for assessing scientific thinking ability using science writing. Teacher Education Research, 52(3), 575-588. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.52.3.201312.575
  35. Lee, J. & Jeong, E. (2013b). The effect of science writing activities on high school students' scientific thinking ability in Life Science 1 class. Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 476-491. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2013.37.3.476
  36. Lee, J., Maeng, S., & Kim, C. (2008). A new way of reading the science classroom discourse: Pedagogical discourse analysis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 832-847.
  37. Lee, J., Maeng, S., Kim, H., & Kim, C. (2007). The systemic functional linguistics analysis of texts in elementary science textbooks by curriculum revision. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(3), 242-252.
  38. Lee, J. & Park, Y. (2016). Analyzing the transcription mode effects on the beta-gamma activity in a writing assessment. Journal of Research on Korean Education, 51(1), 252-284.
  39. Lee, S. (2000). A study on development stages of writing ability. The Korean Language and Literature, 126, 27-50.
  40. Lee, S. (2016). The application of critical discourse analysis for the analysis of texts in the field of social studies education: Focusing on systemic functional linguistics-based analysis. Theory and Research in Citizenship Education, 48(4), 173-224.
  41. Lee, S., Choi, C., Lee, G., Shin, M., & Song, H. (2013). Exploring scientific reasoning in elementary science classroom discourses. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.181
  42. Lee, S. & Ju, Y. (2005). A study on the aspects of writing ability development. The Education of Korean Language, 118, 127-148.
  43. Lim, O., & Kim, H. (2017). An analysis of perception on science writing of elementary school teachers and students. Cheongram Journal of Research on Science Education, 23(1), 37-52.
  44. Lim, O. & Kim, H. (2018). Scientific reasoning types and levels in science writings of elementary school students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 37(4), 372-390. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2018.37.4.372
  45. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett, & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233-265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
  46. Ministry of Education (2015). Science curriculum, No. 2015-74 [issue 9]. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  47. Ministry of Education and Human Resources (2007). Science curriculum. No. 2007-79. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Development.
  48. Minto, B. (1996). The pyramid principle: logic in writing and thinking. Pearson Education. (Lee, J., translator (2017). Seoul: The-Nan Publishing.
  49. Nam, J., Kwak, K., Jang, K., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using science writing heuristics (SWH) in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
  50. Nam, J., Park, J., & Lee, D. (2012). The impact of the science writing heuristic approach on students' use of multiplr representations in science writing and students' recognition about multiple representations. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society. 56(6), 759-767. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2012.56.6.759
  51. Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  52. Park, E., Jhun, Y., & Lee, I. (2007). Analysis of the elementary school participants' readiness to write on scientific subjects in science writing contest. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(4), 385-394.
  53. Park, J. (2000). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis - Focused on the definition and the characteristics of scientific hypothesis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4). 667-679.
  54. Park, J. & Shin, Y. (2007). Analysis of the types of science writing based on the scientific thinking abilities in science worksheet attached to elementary science textbook. The Bulletin of Science Education, 20(1), 99-112.
  55. Park, Y. (2014). A study of eye movement while Korean teachers assess handwriting and word processor writing samples. Korean Language Education Research, 49(2), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.20880/kler.2014.49.2.193
  56. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336643
  57. Rivard, L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
  58. Salmon, W. C. (1984). Logic (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. (translated by K. Kauk, Seoul: Parkyoungsa, 2015).
  59. Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  60. Sharma, A. & Buxton, C. A. (2015). Human-nature relationship in school science: A Critical discourse analysis of a middle-grade science textbook. Science Education, 99(2), 260-281. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21147
  61. Son, J. (2006). A science writing teaching method based on scientific thinking for improving scientific essay writing ability. The Journal of Curriculum & Evaluation, 9(2), 333-355. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2006.9.2.333
  62. Son, J. (2009). The study of scientifically gifted students' scientific thinking and creative problem solving ability through science writing. Journal of Science Gifted Education, 1(3), 21-32.
  63. Song, Y., Yang, I., Kim, J., & Choi, H. (2011). A study of the elementary school teachers' perception of science writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 788-800. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.5.788
  64. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
  65. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  66. Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  67. Wallace, R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 41-56.
  68. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99-149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497
  69. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001

Cited by

  1. 문제의 구성을 강조한 프로그램에서 나타난 탐구 문제와 과학적 추론의 관련성 탐색 -삼투 현상 탐구 활동을 중심으로- vol.40, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.1.77
  2. 논의기반 탐구활동이 초등학생의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 주장과 증거에 미치는 영향 vol.64, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.6.389