Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Scientific Explanations by Earth Science Teachers in Secondary Schools: Analyses of the Logical Forms and Discursive Features

중등학교 지구과학 교사들의 과학적 설명: 논리적 형식과 담화적 특징 분석

  • Published : 2007.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to classify the logical forms of scientific explanations provided by teachers in secondary earth science classrooms, to examine the characteristics of the scientific explanations in different forms, and to identify the roles of the teacher and students in discursive practices for scientific explanations. Data came from the earth science teachers who participated in overseas teacher in-service programs in the years 2003 and 2004. A total of 18 video-taped lessons and their verbatim transcriptions were analyzed. The result showed that deductive-nomological explanations occurred most frequently in earth science classrooms and that the deductive-nomological model was well-suited to those problems for which there existed firmly established scientific laws or principles to construct scientific explanations. However, abductive explanations were presented when the classes dealt with retrodictive tasks of earth science. The statistical-probabilistic and statistical-relevance models were also employed in explaining weather proverbs and unusual changes of weather, respectively. Most of the scientific explanations were completed through the teachers' monologic utterances, and students assumed passive roles in discursive practices for developing scientific explanations. Implications for science lessons and science education research were discussed.

본 연구의 목적은 우리나라 중등학교 지구과학 수업에서 교사들이 제공하는 과학적 설명을 논리적 형식에 따라 분류하고, 서로 다른 형식의 과학적 설명이 지니는 특징과 과학적 설명을 위한 담화 행위에서 교사와 학생들의 역할을 분석하는 것이었다. 연구를 위한 자료는 2003년과 2004년에 해외 단기 연수 프로그램에 참여한 지구과학 교사들로부터 수집되었으며, 총18차시에 해당하는 지구과학 수업 녹화 자료와 전사본을 분석하였다. 분석된 지구과학 수업에서는 연역-법칙적 설명이 가장 빈번히 발생하였고, 연역-법칙적 모형은 과학적 설명을 구성하는 데 필요한 과학 법칙이나 상위의 원리가 잘 정립된 문제에 알맞은 것임을 알 수 있었다. 하지만, 지구과학의 후진적 추론 과제를 다루는 상황에서는 귀추적 설명이 제공되었고, 일기 속담이나 기상 이변과 같이 지구과학에 특징적인 대상을 설명할 때에는 각각 통계-확률적 모형과 통계-유관성 모형에 부합하는 설명이 활용되었다. 지구과학수업에서 과학적 설명은 주로 교사의 단독적인 발화를 통해 이루어졌으며, 학생들은 과학적 설명을 구성하기 위한 담화 행위에서 주로 소극적인 역할을 담당하였다. 이상과 같은 연구 결과가 과학 수업과 과학교육 연구에 시사하는 점들을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 오필석 (2005) '비계설정' (scaffolding) 의 개념화. 교육적 담화 분석을 위한 한 시도. 2005 년 과학교육자 종합학술대회 자료집, 213-214
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  3. Chi, M T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477
  4. Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 361-374 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290405
  5. Edwards, n, & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom New York, NY: McMillan
  6. Engelhardt, W. von, & Zirmnermann, J. (1982). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fischer) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  7. Fetzer, J. H. (2002). Propensities and frequencies: Inference to the best explanation. Sythesis, 132, 27-61
  8. Gee, J. P., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M D. leCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 277-291). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
  9. Gerrard, A. J. (1984). Multiple working hypotheses and equifinality in geomorphology: Comments on the recent articles by Haines-Young and Fetch, Transactions of the Institute of British Geography, New Series, 9(3), 364-366 https://doi.org/10.2307/622239
  10. Green, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  11. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: The Free Press
  12. Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  13. Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72(1), 41-49 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720104
  14. Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Process of discovery and explanation. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
  15. Martin, M (1985). Concepts of science education: A philosophical analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America
  16. Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (1992). 'Scaffolding' learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 186-195). London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton
  17. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Knowledge and thought: Mental models that support scientific reasoning. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 226-243). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
  18. Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(I), 121-143 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121
  19. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World
  20. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M, Smith, M L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535-563 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063
  21. Oh, P. S. (2005). Discursive roles of the teacher during class sessions for students presenting their science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1825-185l https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239714
  22. Ohlsson, S. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp, 91-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  23. Psillos, S. (2000). Abduction: Between conceptual richness and computational complexity: In P. A. Flach & A. C. Kakas (Eds.), Abduction and induction (pp, 59-74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  24. Pitt, J. C. (Ed.), (1988). Theories of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press
  25. Salmon, W. C. (1971). Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press
  26. Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  27. Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
  28. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127
  29. Shin, M-K., Yager, R. E., Oh, P. S., & Lee, M-K. (2003). Changes in science classrooms after experiencing an international professional staff development program International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 505-522 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-005-3354-1
  30. Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press
  31. Woodward, J. (1994). Effects of curriculum discourse style on eighth graders' recall and problem solving in earth science. The Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 299-314 https://doi.org/10.1086/461768