Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Differences of Reflective Inquiry according to Students' Characteristics and Interaction Modes of Small Group in an Inquiry-based High School Earth Science

고등학교 지구과학 탐구활동에서 학습자의 특성과 상호작용 양식에 따른 반성적 탐구의 차이

  • Jeong, Jin-Woo (Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Park, Mi-Ra (Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education)
  • 정진우 (한국교원대학교 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 박미라 (한국교원대학교 지구과학교육과)
  • Published : 2009.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of reflective inquiry according to students' characteristics and interaction modes of small group in three contexts of the classroom and to obtain educational implications about using small group and teacher's intervention for an effective reflective inquiry. We transcribed and analyzed the students' conversation in inquiry activities of small group with frameworks of linguistic behavior and three contexts of the classroom. The result of the study indicated that individual and group reflective inquiry could be affected by the relationship with peers more than their own characteristics.

본 연구는 수업의 3가지 맥락(자료, 과제, 역할)에서 학습자의 특성과 그룹의 상호작용에 따른 그룹과 개인의 반성적 탐구는 어떤 차이가 있는지를 알아보고 이를 통해 효율적인 반성적 탐구활동을 위한 소그룹 구성과 교사의 지도에 시사점을 얻고자 하였다. 이를 위해 고등학교 1학년 1개 학급을 선정해서 반성적 탐구활동수업을 실시하고 수업을 녹화 전사해서 언어행동분석틀과 수업상황의 3가지 맥락으로 분석하였다. 본 연구의 결과로부터 학생개인과 그룹의 반성적 탐구는 학생들의 개별특성 그 자체보다는 다튼 학생과 학급에서 어떤 관계를 가지느냐에 더 영향을 받는다는 것을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석진, 2000, 토론과정에서 사회적 합의 형성을 강조한 개념학습전략: 교수효과 및 소집단 토론에서의 언어적 상호작용. 서울대학교 박사학위 논문, 194 p
  2. 김찬종, 오필석, 오영선, 박영신, 2005, 포트폴리오 체제를 적용한 수업에서 학생들의 소집단 내 상호작용 참여 양상과 포트폴리오 성취도와의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 25, 837-848
  3. 정진우, 박미라, 정철, 2007, 고등학교 지구과학 탐구활동에서 수업유형에 따른 학생들의 반성적 탐구의 특성. 한국지구과학교육학회지, 28, 1-13 https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2007.28.1.001
  4. 성숙경, 2005, 사회적 상호작용을 강조한 과학탐구실험에서 언어적 상호작용의 변화와 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문, 263 p
  5. 송인섭, 1990, 중. 고등학생용 자아개념진단검사. 한국심리적성검사연구소, 서울, 10 p
  6. 이상로, 변창진, 진희교, 2000, 표준화 성격진단검사. 중앙적성연구소, 서울, 13 p
  7. 이현영, 장상실, 성숙경, 이상권, 강성주, 최병순, 2002, 사회적 상호작용을 강조한 과학 탐구실험 과정에서 학생-학생 상호작용 양상 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 22, 660-670
  8. 임희준, 노태희, 2001, 이질적으로 구성된 소집단 협동학습에서의 언어적 상호작용. 한국과학교육학회지, 21, 668-676
  9. 임희준, 박수연, 노태희, 1999, 협동학습 과정에서의 언어적 행동과 학업성취도와의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 19, 367-376
  10. 전윤식, 장혁표, 1983, 집단잠입도형검사. 태화출판사, 서울, 5 p
  11. Alexopoulou, E. and Driver, R., 1996, Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in peers and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099-1114 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
  12. Artzt, A.F. and Armour-Thomas, E., 1992, Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137-175 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0902_3
  13. Berg, C., Bergendahl, V., Lundberg, B., and Tibell, L., 2003, Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitude to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 351-372 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145738
  14. Bianchini, J.A., 1999, From here to equity: The influence of status on student access to and understanding of science. Science Education, 83, 577-602 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199909)83:5<577::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  15. Burns, J, Okey, J., and Wise, K., 1985, Development of an Integrated Process Skills Test: TIPSII. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 169-177 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220208
  16. Campbell, B., Kaunda, L., Allie, S., Buffier, A., and Lubben, E, 2000, The communication of laboratory investigations by university entrants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 839-853 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<839::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-W
  17. Cazden, C.B., 1986, Classroom discourse. In Wittrock, M.C. (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). A Division of Macmillan, NY, USA, 432-463
  18. Flick, L.B., 2006, Developing understanding of scientific inquiry in secondary students. In Flick, L.B. and Lederman, N.G. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry And Nature Of Science. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 157-172
  19. Hogan, K., 1999a, Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students' collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085-1109 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1085::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-D
  20. Hogan, K., 1999b, Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 855-882 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290336
  21. Lo, J., Wheatley, G.H., and Smith, A.C., 1994, The participation, beliefs, and development of arithmetic meaning of a third-grade student in mathematics class discussions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 30-49 https://doi.org/10.2307/749291
  22. Lob, B., 2003, Using articulation and inscription as catalysts for reflection: Design principles for reflective inquiry. Doctoral dissertation Northwestern University, 344 p
  23. Lob, B., Reiser, B.J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D.C., Gomez, L.M., and Marshal, S., 2001, Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In Crowley, S.K., Schunn, C., and Okada, T. (eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ, USA, 279-323
  24. Lumpe, A.T., 1995, Peer interaction in science concept development and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 302-309 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15788.x
  25. Millar, D.P., 1986, Introduction to small group discussion. Speech Communication Association, Virginia, USA, 76p
  26. Mundt, J., Bramlette, J., Finn, L.E., Olson, J., Flores, S., North-Tomcyzk, K., Lachance-Whitcomb, J., Loh, B., and Radinsky, J., Earth structures and processes: Exploring earth's crust with models and data. (in press) A middle school thematic science curriculum from the Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools, 164 p
  27. Noddings, N., 1989, Theoretical and practical concerns about small groups in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 89, 607-623
  28. Radinsky, J., 2000, Making sense of complex data: A frarnework for studying students' development of reflective inquiry dispositions. Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, 349 p
  29. Radinsky, J., Leimberer, J.M., and Gomez, L.M., 2000, Reflective inquiry with complex data: A case study of dispositional learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ED445122
  30. Richmond, G and Striley, J., 1996, Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839-858 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  31. Rivas, M.G., 1999, Student-student negotiation: Characteristics of constructing understanding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NARST, ED446913
  32. Roth, W.M., 1997, Interactional structures during a grade 4-5 open-design engineering unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 273-302 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199703)34:3<273::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-P
  33. Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., and Cox, P.W., 1977, Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implication. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001

Cited by

  1. A Comparison of Verbal Interaction Patterns in Science Cooperative Learning Based on Grouping by Middle School Students' Collectivism vol.34, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0221