참고문헌
- 강태완, 김태용, 이상철, 허경호(2001). 토론의 방법. 서울:커뮤니케이션북스
- 김희경, 강태욱, 송진웅(2003). 7차 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교과서 물리단원 실험의 특징. 새물리, 47(6), 387-394
- 민병곤(2000). 신문사설의 논증 구조 분석. 국어국문학, 127, 133-154
- 민병곤(2001), 논증 이론의 현황과 국어 교육의 과제. 국어교육학연구, 12(1), 237-285
- 연세대학교 언어정보개발연구원(2002). 연세 한국어사전. 서울: 두산동아
- 이범홍(1998). 토의토론 학습과 중등학교 과학교육. 1997년도 교과교육공동연구 결과 보고서(RR 97-II-6). 서울: 한국학술진흥재단
- 이선영(2002). 토론의 논증 구성과 사회적 상호작용에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 석사 학위 논문
- 한국물리교육연구센터(1994). 과학 공동탐구 토론대회 보고서. 서울: 관악사
- Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1996). Small group discussions in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
- Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussions in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 393-406 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190403
- Bell, P. & Linn. M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE, International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
- Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Loughran, J. J., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 45(1), 27-31
- Boulter, C. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. S. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
- Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
- Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
- Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). 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
- Collette, A. T. & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill Pub. Co
- Cunningham, C. M. & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483-499 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199805)35:5<483::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-L
- Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum
- Dillon, J. T. (1994). Using discussion in classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
- Driver, R. (1983). The Pupil as Scientist? Milton Keynes: The Open University Press
- Driver, R. (1989). The Construction of Scientific Knowledge in School Classrooms. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education (pp. 83-105). NY: The Falmer Press
- Driver, R. & Scott, P. H. (1996). Curriculum Development as Research: A Constructivist Approach to Science Curriculum Development and Teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J.Fraser (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp. 83-106). NY: Teachers College Press
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborn, 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
- Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110133
- Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanisms of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
- Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Boston, MA
- Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
- Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science cuniculum. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
- Hackling, M. W. & Fairbrother, R. W. (1996). Helping students to do open investigation in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4), 26-33
- Heisenberg, W. (1982). 부분과 전체 (김용준, 역). 서울: 지식산업사. (원저 1969 발행)
- Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560022
- Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work in School Science (pp. 93-108). NY: Routledge
- Hodson, D. & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about pratical about practical work: changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683-694 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200606
- Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
- Inch, E. S. & Warnick, B. (2002). Critical thinking and communication: the use of reason in argument. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A. & Duschl, R. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Agroso, M., & Birexas, F. (2004, April). Scientific Authority and Empirical Data in Argument Warrants about the Prestige Oil Spill. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada
- Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
- Kelly G. J. & Hilton-Brown, B. (2001, March). Discourse studies of science education: a review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
- Kelly, G. J. & Talmo, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314- 342 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
- Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld(Eds.), Emergence of Mathematical Meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
- Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178 https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
- Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
- Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
- Lepper, M. R. & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. E. Ames(Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: Goals and Cognitions (VoI.3, pp. 73-105). Orlando, FL: Academic Press
- Millar, R. H. (1989). What scientific method and can it be taught? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in Science Education: A critical analysis. London: Routledge
- Millar, R. H. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in Science Education is really for. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp 16-31). NY: Routledge
- National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
- Newton, P., Driver, R, & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science, International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
- Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10035
- Pera, M. (1994). The Discourses of Science (C. Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
- Rigano, D. L. & Ritchie, S. M. (1995). Student disclosure of fraudulent practice in school laboratories. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 353-363 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357382
- Roberts, R. and Gatt, R. (2002). Investigations: collecting and using evidence. In D. Sang, and V. Wood-Robinson (Eds.), Teaching secondary scientific enquiry (pp 18-49). London: John Murray
- Rogers, E. M. (1948). Science in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general education. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Publishers
- Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic School Science. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27-45 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200104
- Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2002, April). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana
- Surral, C. S., Sunal, D. W., Tirri, K. (2001, April). Using evidence in scientific reasoning: Exploring characteristics of middle school students' argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
- Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381-405 https://doi.org/10.1086/392651
- Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, Science and Learning. Developing Science and Technology Series. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
- Taylor, C. (1996). Deiining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
- Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK.: C.U.P.
- van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a studentgenerated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115-142 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289912
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
- Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. NJ: LEA
- Watson, J. R. (2000). The role of practical work. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp.57-71). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
- Watson, J.R., Swain, J.R.L, & McRobbie, C. (2004) Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072764
- Wellington, J. J. (1998). Practical work in science: time for a reappraisal. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3-15). NY: Routledge
- Wellington, J. J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
- Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M., K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008
- Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022411822951
- Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8