한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제26권5호
  • /
  • Pages.620-636
  • /
  • 2006
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Claim-Evidence Approach for the Opportunity of Scientific Argumentation

  • Park, Young-Shin (Research Center on Gifted and Talented Education Korean Development Educational Institute)
  • 발행 : 2006.10.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The purpose of this study was to analyze one science teacher's understanding of student argumentation and his explicit teaching strategies for implementing it in the classroom. One middle school science teacher, Mr. Field, and his students of 54 participated in this study. Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews, 60 hours of classroom observations, and two times of students' lab reports for eight weeks. Coding categories were developed describing the teacher's understanding of scientific argumentation and a description of the main teaching strategy, the Claim-Evidence Approach, was introduced. Toulmin's approach was employed to analyze student discourse as responses to see how much of this discourse was argumentative. The results indicated that Mr. Field defined scientific inquiry as the abilities of procedural skills through experimentation and of reasoning skills through argumentation. The Claim-Evidence Approach provided students with opportunities to develop their own claims based on their readings, design the investigation for evidence, and differentiate pieces of evidence from data to support their claims and refute others. During this approach, the teacher's role of scaffolding was critical to shift students' less extensive argumentation to more extensive argumentation through his prompts and questions. The different level of teacher's involvement, his explicit teaching strategy, and the students' scientific knowledge influenced the students' ability to develop and improve argumentation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
  2. Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237-258 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200003)37:3<237::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-6
  3. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  4. Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr & L. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109-143). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  5. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  6. Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535-555 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710406
  7. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432 https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
  8. Kahan, P. (2000). Science explorer: Motion, forces, and energy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
  9. Klahr, D., & Kotovsky, L. (1989). Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  10. Krajcik, K., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial Attempts by middles students. The Journal of the Learning Science, 7 (3 & 4), 313-350 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_3
  11. Kuim, D. (1986). Education for thinking. Teachers College Record, 87(4), 495-511
  12. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674
  13. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  14. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego: Academic Press, INC
  15. Lemke, A. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
  16. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  17. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  18. Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1996). The challenges of instructional scaffolding: The challenges of instruction that supports student thinking. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11 (3), 138-146
  19. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small -group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  20. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press
  21. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179-199 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<179::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-T
  22. Yenrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7