한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제31권8호
  • /
  • Pages.1077-1091
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

논의가 강조된 일반화학실험이 예비교사의 글쓰기 능력 및 화학개념 이해에 미치는 효과

The Effects of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory on Preservice Science Teachers' Understanding of Chemistry Concepts and Writing

  • 투고 : 2011.05.12
  • 심사 : 2011.12.07
  • 발행 : 2011.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구의 목적은 논의가 강조된 일반화학실험 프로그램이 대학생들의 화학개념 이해와 글쓰기 능력에 미치는 효과를 알아보기 위한 것이다. 5개의 주제를 선정하여'탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic, SWH)'전략을 바탕으로 일반화학실험에 적합하도록 논의가 강조된 프로그램을 개발하였다. 프로그램의 효과를 검증하기 위한 검사 도구로 Summary Writing 검사 도구와 이를 분석하기 위한 평가틀, 그리고 학생들의 화학개념이해 검사지를 개발하였다. 일반화학실험 강좌는 15주 과정으로 구성되어 있는데, 23명의 실험집단은 5개의 논의가 강조된 일반화학실험 프로그램과 전통적 방식의 일반화학 실험을 병행하여 수행하였고, 16명의 비교집단은 전통적 방식의 일반화학실험을 수행하였다. 연구결과 두 집단 간에는 유의미한 차이가 나타났다. Summary Writing에서 실험집단은 비교집단보다 유의미하게 높은 결과를 나타내었다. 세부영역인'Big Idea'에서는 실험집단과 비교집단 사이에 유의미한 차이가 나타나지 않았지만, '논의', '과학개념 이해', '수사적 구조'에서는 실험집단이 비교집단보다 유의미하게 높은 결과를 나타내었다. 또한 화학개념 이해 검사에서도 실험집단이 비교집단보다 유의미하게 높은 결과를 보였다. 따라서 논의가 강조된 일반화학실험 프로그램이 일반화학실험에서의 학생들의 화학개념 이해와 글쓰기에 효과적이라고 볼 수 있다.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory on preservice science teachers' chemistry concepts understanding and writing. Five topics about argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory activities were developed using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Summary Writing Test, and Chemistry Concepts Test were developed as tools to examine the effects of this approach. Both Argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory activities and traditional general chemistry laboratory activities were implemented for the experimental group (23 students), and traditional general chemistry laboratory activities were implemented for the comparative group (16 students). Results of this study indicated that there were significant differences in both groups' chemistry concepts understanding and summary writing. The experimental group showed significantly higher mean score than comparative group in chemistry concepts understanding and summary writing. In the analysis of the sub-component of Summary Writing, there were no significant difference between both groups in 'Big Idea.' However, the experimental group gained significantly higher mean score in 'argumentation,' 'understanding of science concepts,' and 'rhetoric structure.' The results showed that argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory programs were effective in achieving chemistry concepts understanding and writing in general chemistry laboratory.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 교육과학기술부(2009). 2009개정 과학과 교육과정.
  2. 교육과학기술부(2011). 2011년 교원자격검정 실무편람. 교육과학기술부 교원정책과.
  3. 교육부 (1997). 제7차 과학과 교육과정. 서울: 대한교과서주식회사
  4. 교육인적자원부 (2007). 2007개정 과학과 교육과정.
  5. 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Hand, B. (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학글쓰기의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936.
  6. 이강님 (2007). 구성주의 학습전략이 중학생의 과학 개념학습과 과학적 태도에 미치는 영향 -과학 글쓰기 중심으로-. 전북대학교 박사학위 논문.
  7. 이미경, 손원숙, 노언경 (2007). PISA 2006 결과 분석 연구. 한국교육과정평가원 연구리포트.
  8. 이효녕, 조현호, 손정주 (2009). 학교과학교육에 서의 논증활동 활용에 대한 교사들의 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(6), 666-679.
  9. 조정일(1991). 과학-기술-사회 교육과정에 관한연구, 한국과학교육학회지, 11(2), 87-101.
  10. Bodmer, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p873
  11. 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
  12. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in school: A theoretical framework for evaluation inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  14. Collette, A. T., & Chiapetta, E. L. (1984). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company
  15. Connolly, P., & Vilardi, T. (Eds.). (1989). Writing to learn mathematics and science. New York: Teachers College Press
  16. Cooper, M. M. (2005). An introduction to small-group learning. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists' guide to effective teaching, 117-128. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  17. Dewey, J. (1916). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
  18. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, 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
  20. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933
  21. Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Middle school students' dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Kiel, Germany.
  22. Duschl, R. & Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Argumentation processes in science learning. Paper presented at an International Conference entitled Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction. University of Victoria, BC.
  23. Eisenberg, A., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538109544512
  24. European Commission (1995). White paper on education and training: Teaching and learning-toward the learning society (white paper). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications in European Countries.
  25. Halliday, M. A., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
  26. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2006). When science and literacy meet in the secondary learning space: Implementing the science writing heuristic (SWH). University of Iowa.
  27. 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
  28. Harms, N. C. & Yager, R. E.(1981). What Research Says to the Science Teacher, vol. 3. Washington D. C. : National Science Teachers Association, 94-112.
  29. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  30. Hohenshell, L. H. (2004). Enhancing science literacy through implementation of writingto- learn strategies : Exploratory studies in high school biology. Dissertation. Iowa State University.
  31. 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
  32. Hurd, P. (1958). Scientific literacy: Its meaning for american school. Education Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
  33. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations 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
  34. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
  35. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
  36. Munby, A. H. (1980). Analysing teaching for intellectual independence. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, & T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing curriculum in a new light: Essay from science education. Toronto: OISE Press.
  37. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  38. Norris, S. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81(2), 239-258 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<239::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-G
  39. NSTA (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science Education for the 1980s. Atistsn NSTA Position Statement, NSTA, Washington D. C.
  40. NSTA (1990). Science-Technology-Society: A New Effect for Providing Appropriate Science for All. An NSTA Position Statement, NSTA. Washington D. C.
  41. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideasabout- science"should be taught in school science? A delpi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  42. Osborne, J., Erduran., S., & Simon, 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
  43. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the readers' world meets the world on paper?. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290723
  44. 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
  45. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U
  46. Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, 227-260.
  47. Shiland, T. W. (1999). Constructivism: The implications for laboratory work. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 107-109. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p107
  48. Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Esperet (Series eds.), Andriessen, J. E. B., Coirier, P. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing 5: Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
  49. Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1991). I winyou lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  50. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(91)90013-X
  52. 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
  53. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students'knowledge and argumentation skills though dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

피인용 문헌

  1. 중학생의 성취 수준에 따른 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic) 수업의 효과 vol.33, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.952
  2. Application and Development of a Storytelling Teaching-learning Method Using the Science Writing Heuristic vol.17, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.3.709
  3. 논변, 논의 그리고 논증: 개념의 명료화를 위한 문헌조사 연구 vol.33, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119
  4. 예비 화학 교사의 논의와 글쓰기가 강조된 탐구 중심 과학 수업 계획과 수행: 어려움과 극복과정을 중심으로 vol.60, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2016.60.5.342
  5. A Study of Preliminary Biology Teachers’Scientific Inquiry Skills and LogicalThinking Ability through the Activity of Science Writing vol.44, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2016.44.1.114
  6. 화학 탐구 맥락에서 중등 과학 교사가 제시한 주장과 증거 분석 vol.61, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2017.61.6.359
  7. 논의기반 탐구 과학수업의 학급 논의 활동에서 나타나는 중학생들의 인식론적 사고의 특징 및 변화 vol.64, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.1.38