Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Key Stages of a Research and Students' Epistemic Agency in a Student-Driven R&E

학생 주도의 R&E 활동에서 드러나는 연구 활동의 주요 단계 및 학생의 인식적 행위주체성

  • Received : 2019.05.22
  • Accepted : 2019.08.21
  • Published : 2019.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this age of the $4^{th}$ industrial revolution, we, science educators, are giving more light on students' agentic behavior in the process of educating future scientist. This study, with the analytic lens of epistemic agency, explores the key stages of a student-driven R&E program rather than the scientist-led R&E program. It also examines to understand the emergence of students' epistemic agency in each stage of R&E. Data from participant observation for 18 months and in-depth interviews were collected and analyzed with the constant comparative method of grounded theory. This study identifies and describes five key stages of student-driven R&E: The stage of exploring research theme, designing research, performing lab activity, interpreting results, and communicating research. It also finds that (a) students' epistemic agency emerged with the constant interactions with the R&E structure; (b) students' epistemic agency has deep relations with the epistemic beliefs of the students; (c) students positioned themselves as decision-makers in the R&E practice; (d) the redistributed power and authority of the R&E contributed to the emergence of students' epistemic agency.

미래의 과학자 양성을 목표로, 진정한 과학 탐구의 경험을 강조하고 있는 고등학생들의 R&E 활동에서 점진적으로 주목하고 있는 것은 진정한 탐구 주체로서의 학생의 활동이다. 본 연구에서는 고등학교에서 수행되고 있는 R&E 활동 중에서 특히 학생이 그 주체가 되어 연구의 과정을 결정하고 실행하는 학생 주도의 R&E를 대상으로 연구 수행의 주요 흐름을 파악하고, 각 단계에서 드러나는 학생의 인식적 행위주체성을 탐색하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 과학영재학교 1학년 학생들이 수행한 교내 R&E 활동에 대하여 18개월에 걸친 질적 사례 연구를 수행하였으며, 연구 참여자와의 반 구조화된 면담 자료, 연구자의 참여관찰 일지, 학생과의 논의 과정에 대한 녹음자료, 학생 산출물 등과 같은 질적 자료를 수집, 근거이론에 기반한 지속적 비교분석법에 따라 귀납적으로 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 학생 주도의 R&E 활동은 주제 탐색의 단계-연구 설계의 단계-실험활동 수행의 단계-해석 및 고찰의 단계-과학적 의사소통의 단계를 거치는 것으로 드러났으며, 이와 같은 연구의 흐름은 비선형적이며 단계 간 중첩과 회귀가 빈번하게 드러나는 동적인 특징을 지님을 알 수 있었다. 두 번째로, 학생 주도의 R&E 활동에서 학생의 인식적 행위주체성은 R&E 구조와의 지속적인 상호작용을 통해 발현되었다. R&E의 구조에 의한 인식적 행위주체성의 촉발은 연구의 진행에 따라 점차 자발적 발현으로 전환되었으며, 특히 학생의 인식적 신념과 깊은 관련성을 보였다. 또한 인식적 행위주체성의 발현 과정에서 학생들은 스스로를 R&E 활동의 의사결정자로 배치하는 모습을 보였으며, 이는 R&E 활동에 대한 권위의 재분배와도 밀접한 관련성을 드러냈다. 학생 주도의 R&E 활동이 어떠한 흐름을 가지고 이루어지며, 그 가운데 학생들이 어떠한 인식적 행위주체성을 보이는지에 대한 본 연구는 지속적으로 확산되고 있는 고등학생들의 연구 활동 참여에 대한 심층적 이해를 제공함과 동시에, 학생들이 스스로의 탐구 활동에서 진정한 주체로 자리매김 할 수 있도록 지원하고자 하는 많은 교육 연구자들에게 그 방향성 수립을 위한 단초를 제공할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnold, J., & Clarke, D. J. (2014). What is ‘agency'? Perspectives in science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.825066
  2. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
  3. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching pupils "idea-about-science": Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655-682. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10136
  4. Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin'! Agency, Identity, and science learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530044
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.
  6. Chin, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2000). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  7. Choe, H. S. & Tae J. M. (2015). The meaning and value of R&E (Research and Education) experiences of science specialized high schools: Gathering voices of graduates by individual interview. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 14(3), 51-79.
  8. Damsa. C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andrissen, J. E. B., Erkens G., & Sins, P. H. M. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
  9. Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
  10. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  11. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  12. Giddens, A. (2001). Mordernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Oxford: Polity Press.
  13. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
  14. Goulart, M. I., & Roth, W. M. (2010) Engaging young childeren in collective curriculum design. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(3), 533-562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9196-3
  15. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Jung, H. C., Chae, Y., & Ryu, C. R. (2012a). Study on research and education (R&E) programs in science high schools and science academies: Focusing on the differences of perceptions between students and mentors. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(7), 1139-1156. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1139
  17. Jung, H. C., Ryu, C. R., & Chae, Y. (2012b). Research and education (R&E) programs in science high schools and gifted high schools: Based on the interview results with R&E coordinators. Journal of Gifted and Talented Education, 22(2), 243-264. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.2.243
  18. Kang, S. J., Kim, H. J., Lee, G. J., Kwon, Y. S., Kim, M. H., Kim, Y. S., Kim, Y. H., Shin, H. S., Lim H. Y., & Ha, J. H. (2009). A study of scientifically gifted high school students' perceptions on the research and education program. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 29(6), 626-638.
  19. Kim, K. & Shim, J. Y. (2008). Scientifically gifted students' perception on the impact of R&E program based on KAIST freshmen survey. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 28(4), 282-290.
  20. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classroom: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Science, 7(3), 313-350 https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
  21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Lee, M., & Kim, H. (2016). Science high school students' shift in scientific practice and perception through the R&E participation: On the perspective of legitimate peripheral participation in the community of science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 371-387. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0371
  23. Lee, J,. & Kim, S. (2018). Exploring the development of research questions from high school research project. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(3), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.3.319
  24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury PA, CA: Sage Publications.
  25. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.
  26. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed). Sanfransisco, AV: Jossey-Bass.
  27. National Research Council (2000). National science education standards. Washington, DC; National Academy Press.
  28. Park, J., Jang, K, Lim, I. (2009). An analysis of the actual processes of physicists' research and implications for teaching scientific inquiry in school. Research in Science Education, 39(1). 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9079-8
  29. Reed, B. (2001). Epistemic agency and the intellectual virtues. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 39(4), 507-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2001.tb01831.x
  30. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
  31. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Jones (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
  32. Schwartz, D., & Okita, S. (2004). The productive agency in learning by teaching. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://aaalab.stanford.edu/papers/Productive_Agency_in_Learning_by_Teaching. pdf
  33. Sewell, W. H. Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967
  34. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn scienceas-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
  35. Stroupe, D., Caballero, M. D., & White, D. (2018). Fostering students' epistemic agency through the co-configuration of moth research. Science Education, 102(6), 1176-1200. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21469
  36. Yun, H., & Kim, H. (2018). Exploring science high school students' epistemic goals, epistemic considerations and complexity of reasoning in open inquiry. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.4.541

Cited by

  1. 과학고등학교 학생을 대상으로 한 공학적 문제해결 중심 메이커톤 프로그램의 개발 및 효과 vol.23, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.18108/jeer.2020.23.3.13