한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제28권8호
  • /
  • Pages.922-936
  • /
  • 2008
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지

논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용

The Implementation of Argumentation Using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in Middle School Science

  • 발행 : 2008.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 중학교 과학에서 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(SWH) 교수-학습 전략에 따른 수업 프로그램을 개발하고 실시하여 이 프로그램이 학생들의 인지수준 발달, 과학개념 이해, 논의 및 글쓰기의 향상에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 남녀공학 중학교 2학년 학생 132명을 선정하여 실험집단과 비교집단으로 임으로 배정하였다. 실험집단에는 SWH 수업전략을, 비교집단에는 교사중심의 전통적인 수업을 적용하였다. 그 결과 이 연구에서 개발한 수업 전략이 학생들의 인지수준 발달, 과학개념 개념이해와 논의, 글쓰기에 효과적인 것으로 나타났으나 논의과정 요소 중보장, 보강, 한정, 반증, 메타인지에는 유의미한 효과가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(SWH)가 실험집단의 과학개념 이해와 과학적 글쓰기 능력의 향상에 효과적이었음을 나타내며 단방향적인 글쓰기뿐만 아니라 전체적인 논의과정 능력의 질적 향상을 위한 수업전략의 개발이 요구됨을 시사한다.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) teaching strategy on cognitive levels, science concept understanding, argumentation and writing skills. 131 students attending to co-ed middle school were selected for the study and assigned to the experimental and comparative group. The teaching strategy using SWH was applied to the experimental group, while the traditional one led by teacher's lecturing was applied to the comparative group. The cognitive level test (SRT II) and baseline test were administered before the instruction period. The summary writing test and SRT II test were administered after instruction. The results showed that there was a significant difference between two groups in cognitive levels and science concept understanding, whole argumentation and writing skills. However, there was no significant difference in some argumentation components, including warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal, metacongnitive question. The results of this study showed the possibility of implementation of SWH in science classroom teaching.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 강석진, 노태희 (2000). 토론 과정에서 사회적 합의를 강조한 개념 학습 전략의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(2), 250-261
  2. 강순민(2004). 과학적 맥락의 논의 과제 해결 과정에서 나타나는 논의과정 요소의 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위 논문
  3. 강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의과정을 강조한 교수.학습 전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 450-461
  4. 강훈식, 김보경, 노태희 (2005). 물질의 입자적 성질에 대한 다중 표상 학습에서 외적 표상들 간의 연계와 통합을 촉진시키는 방안으로서의 그리기와 쓰기. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(4), 533-540
  5. 강훈식, 이성미, 노태희 (2006). 다중 표상 학습에 적용한 그리기와 쓰기에서 시각적 정보의 형태에 따른 교수 효과. 한국과학교육학화지, 26(3), 367-375
  6. 남경운, 이봉우, 이성묵 (2004). 과학일기쓰기가 과학영재의 과학에 관련된 정의적 특성에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1272-1282
  7. 민병곤 (2004). 논증적 텍스트의 생산 과정에서 논증 도식의 운용 양상에 대한 분석 및 교육적 시사. 국어교육학연구, 18, 184-222
  8. 박영목, 한철우, 윤희원 (2001). 국어과 교수학습 방법 탐구. 교육과학사
  9. 이은경, 강성주 (2006). 문제해결형 탐구 모듈 적용에서의 SWH 활용 효과에 대한 학생들의 인식 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(4), 537-545
  10. 이주철 (2006). 논쟁토론 학습을 적용한 주장하는 글쓰기 지도 방안 연구. 한국교원대학교 석사학위 논문
  11. 임재영 (2001). 토론식 쓰기 수업 모형-논술 교육을 중심으로. 성균관대학교 석사학위 논문
  12. 정혁, 정용재, 송진웅(2004). 물리 개념을 주제로 한 11학년 학생의 과학 글쓰기 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 2(5), 1008-1017
  13. Akkus. R., Gunel. M. & Hand. B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629
  14. Alvermann, D. E. (1991). The discussion web: A graphic aid for learning across the curriculum. Reading Teacher, 45(2), 92-99
  15. Burke, K., Poock, J., Greenbowe, T. & Hand, B. (2005). Training chemistry teaching assistants to use the science writing heuristic. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 36-41
  16. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B, M. (2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032-1038 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1032
  17. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. 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
  18. Duschl, R. & Hamilton, R. J. (1998). Conceptual change in science and in the learning of science. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.) International handbook of science education (pp. 1047-1065). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
  19. Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Middle school students dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Kiel, Germany
  20. Duschl, R. & Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Argumentation processes in learning science. Paper presented at the International Conference Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistics and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada
  21. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128 https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
  22. Flower L. S. & Hayes J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes, In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg(Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing, (pp. 4-30). Hillsdale N. J.: Erlbaum
  23. Grimberg, B. I., & Hand, B. M. (2003). The impact of a scientific writing approach in high school students' learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia PA
  24. Haack, S. (2003). Defending science-within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books
  25. Hand, B., Meier, L. N., Staker, J., Bintz, J. (2006). When Science and Literacy Meet in the Secondary Learning Space: Implementing the Science Writing Heuristic(SWH). University of Iowa
  26. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290165
  27. Hohenshell, L. M. & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965
  28. Kelly, G. J., Bazermann, C., Skukauskaite, A., & Prothero, W. (2002). Rhetorical features of student science writing in introductory university oceanography. Paper presented at the International Conference Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistics and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada
  29. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a Tool for learning from Laboratory Investigation in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  30. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178 https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
  31. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
  32. Langer, J., & Applebee, A. (1987). How Writing Shapes thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. National Council of Teachers of English
  33. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values, NJ: Ablex
  34. Newton, P., Driver, P., & 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
  35. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simmon, S., Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70
  36. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simmon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  37. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The Child's Construction of Quantities. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
  38. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00003-0
  39. Santa, C. M., & Havens, L. T. (1991). Learning through writing. In C. M. Santa & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science Learning: Process and Applications (pp. 122-133). Newark, DE: International Reading Association
  40. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  41. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  42. Wallace, C. & Narayan, R. (2002). Acquiring the social language of science: Building science language identities through inquiry-based investigations. Paper presented at the International Conference Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistics and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada
  43. Wylam, H., & Shayer, M. (1980). CSMS science reasoning tasks. NFER Publishing Co
  44. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018