Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Argument-Based Inquiry Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach on Argument Structure in Students' Writing

학생들의 글쓰기에 나타난 논의구조에 미치는 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동의 효과 분석

  • Received : 2012.04.12
  • Accepted : 2012.10.16
  • Published : 2012.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of argument structure on students' writing in implementation of argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Participants of this study were 108 8th grade students (three classes). Two classes (68 students) were assigned to an experimental group, and the other class (35 students) was assigned to a comparative group. The experimental group was taught argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach, while the comparative group was taught with the traditional teaching strategy. After implementing this program, the two groups were asked to write summaries using structured argumentation in their writing. The result of this study showed that the experimental group used better argument structure and multimodal representation such as pictures, graphs and examples in evidence than the comparative group. The quality of evidence used in the students' writing was different between two groups. Students of the comparative group only listed fragments of science concepts for evidence to support their claims, but students of the experimental group explained science concepts by giving specific examples. The findings show that argument-based inquiry using the SWH approach was effective on argument structure in students' writing.

이 연구의 목적은 학생들의 글쓰기에 나타난 논의 구조의 특징을 통해 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동의 효과를 심층적으로 살펴보고자 하는 것이다. 이를 위해 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 전략을 바탕으로 개발된 중학교 2학년 프로그램 7개 주제를 적용한 후 학생들의 글쓰기에 나타난 논의 구조의 특징을 비교해 보았다. 이 연구를 위해 광역시 소재 중학교 2학년 2개 학급을 실험집단으로, 1개 학급을 비교집단으로 선정하여, 실험집단에는 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동을 실시하였고, 비교집단에는 전통적인 강의 및 실험 수업을 실시하였다. 프로그램의 처치 후 두 집단에게 요약 글쓰기를 실시하였고, 요약 글쓰기를 통해 학생들의 글쓰기에 나타나는 논의 구조의 특징을 살펴보았다. 프로그램의 처치 결과 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동을 실시한 실험집단 학생들이 전통적 강의 및 실험 수업을 실시한 비교 집단에 비해 요약 글쓰기에서 논의 구조를 많이 사용하는 것으로 나타났고, 실험집단 학생들의 증거에서 설명과 함께 그림, 그래프, 예시 등의 다양한 표현 제시되어 있었다. 그리고 증거 제시 수준에서도 비교집단은 증거를 제시할 경우 단순한 용어 나열하는 반면 실험집단의 경우 상대방이 이해하기 쉽게 용어에 대한 설명을 하거나 예를 적절히 사용하고 있었다. 이러한 결과로부터 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동이 학생들의 글쓰기에서 논의 구조에 긍정적인 영향을 미치고 비교집단과 구별되는 특징을 나타냄을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 곽경화, 남정희 (2009). 과학적 논의과정 활동을 통한 학생들의 논의과정 변화 및 논의상황에 따른 논의과정 특성. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(4), 400-413.
  2. 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Brian Hand (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936.
  3. 조혜숙 (2009). 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동이 학생들의 글쓰기에서 나타난 다중 표상과 내재성에 미치는 영향. 부산대학교 석사학위 논문.
  4. 이동원 (2011). 논의가 강조된 일반화학실험이 학 생들의 글쓰기에서 나타난 다중 표상과 내재성에 미치는 영향. 부산대학교 석사학위 논문.
  5. Applebee, A.N. (1984a). Writing and reasoning. Review of Education Research, 54, 577-596. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543054004577
  6. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-818. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 3, 287-312.
  8. Duschl. R., & Osborne. J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  9. Duschl, R., & Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Argumentation processes in science learning. Paper presented at the Conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic Foundation For Language and Science Literacy Research, University of Victory, B.C., Canada.
  10. Flower, L. (1998). Problem-solving strategies for writing. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Inc,. N. Y.
  11. Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1990). NAEP 1999 Writing Report Card for the national and the States. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(4), 23-28.
  12. Hand, B., Choi, A., Greenbowe, T., Schroeder, J., & Bennett, W.(2008). Examining the Impact of Student Use of Multiple-mode Representations in Constructing Science Arguments. Annual International Conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
  13. Katherine L. McNeill. (2008). Lynch school of education. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
  14. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography student's use of evidence in writing. Science Education,86, 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  15. Kelly, G. J., Bazerman, C., Skukauakaite, A., & Prothero, W.(2002). Rhetorical features of student science Writing in introductory Conference Ontological, Epistemological., Linguistics and Pedagogical Considerations of language and Science literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada.
  16. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prian, 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
  17. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
  18. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Kuhn. D. (2009). Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
  20. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
  21. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
  22. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, Learning, and values, NJ: Ablex.
  23. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.15(2), 153- 191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
  24. 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
  25. Norris, S., & Philips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  26. Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
  27. Osborne. J., (2002). Science without literacy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559
  28. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 179-201.
  29. Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
  30. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M., Woszcyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 293-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672073
  31. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students''scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
  32. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005) The quality of student's use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Istruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  33. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276

Cited by

  1. The Effects of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach on the Middle School Students' Achievements vol.33, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.952
  2. Analysis of Student Science Writing and Perception on Argument-Based Claim and Evidence Writing Approach vol.34, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.8.0787
  3. An Comparison Analysis of Science Writing Tasks in the Chemistry Domain of Middle School Science Textbooks Developed under the 2007 & the 2009 Revised National Curriculums (RNC) vol.58, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2014.58.6.600
  4. Investigating the Cognitive Process of a Student's Modeling on a Modeling-Emphasized Argument-Based General Chemistry Experiment vol.35, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0313
  5. Impact of Peer Assessment Activities on High School Student's Argumentation in Argument-Based Inquiry vol.35, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0353
  6. The Effects of the Argument-Based Claim and Evidence Writing Approach: Focus on High School Chemistry vol.59, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.1.69
  7. Pre-Service Chemistry Teacher's Designing and Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Instruction that Emphasizes Argumentation and Writing: Focus on Ways to Overcome Difficulties vol.60, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2016.60.5.342
  8. 집단지성을 활용한 예비교사들의 과학지식 형성과정 탐색 vol.33, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.963
  9. Application and Development of a Storytelling Teaching-learning Method Using the Science Writing Heuristic vol.17, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.3.709
  10. 논변, 논의 그리고 논증: 개념의 명료화를 위한 문헌조사 연구 vol.33, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119
  11. 고등학교 논의기반 탐구 과학수업에서 학생 평가활동이 반성적 사고에 미치는 영향 vol.36, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0347
  12. The status of scientific writing and its educational significance in school science vol.23, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.24159/joec.2017.23.6.297
  13. 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(SWH)를 적용한 고등학교 과제연구의 효과 vol.62, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.5.398
  14. Analysis of Science Writing Activities in ‘Life Science I’ Textbooks according to the 2015 Revised Curriculum vol.46, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2018.46.4.556
  15. 초등학교 과학 교과용 도서에서 나타난 과학 글쓰기 과제 분석 : 2007, 2009, 2015 개정 교육과정을 중심으로 vol.12, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2019.12.3.261
  16. 논의기반 탐구 과학수업의 학급 논의 활동에서 나타나는 중학생들의 인식론적 사고의 특징 및 변화 vol.64, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.1.38
  17. 논의기반 탐구활동이 초등학생의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 주장과 증거에 미치는 영향 vol.64, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.6.389