Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Theoretical Considerations on Analytical Framework Design for the Interactions between Participants in Group Argumentation on Socio-Scientific Issues

사회 속 과학 쟁점에 대한 소집단 논변 상호작용 분석을 위한 방법론 고찰

  • Received : 2011.12.08
  • Accepted : 2012.05.07
  • Published : 2012.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to design a framework for analyzing group argumentation in terms of participants' interaction. Regarding the current group argumentation setting as argumentation on socio-scientific issues within participants who have had limited experience on group argumentation, the analytical framework was designed to explain (1) what was each participant's role on group argumentation, (2) how these roles were changed within each time of argumentation, and (3) how the patterns of interaction were changed through seven times of a series of argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Based on the literature review on analytical framework of argumentation in science education including the works on the structure of argumentation, the discourse formation through interaction, and the linguistic approach on participants' interaction, the current research framework was built. Showing the results of applying the designed framework on group argumentation as an example, strength of using the current designed framework was discussed.

본 연구는 한 학기 동안 비과학 전공 대학생들의 사회 속 과학 쟁점에 대한 일련의 소집단 논변을 참여자 상호작용을 중심으로 설명하는 분석틀 마련을 위한 연구이다. 분석틀 마련을 위하여 소집단 논변이 진행되는 상황의 특성 및 논변과 사회적 상호작용 분석을 위한 방법들을 고찰하였다. 연구 상황과 관련하여 논변의 제재가 사회 속 과학 쟁점이며, 참여자들의 논변 경험이 제한되었음을 고려하였다. 따라서 소집단 논변을 통해 관련된 다양한 입장과 견해를 고려했는지, 그리고 참여자의 상호작용 역할 및 일련의 논변을 통한 변화와 발달을 제시할 수 있는 분석틀을 고안하고자 하였다. 기존 분석 방법들 중 과학교육에서 논변의 분석에 가장 빈번히 사용된 Toulmin이 제시한 논변의 구조를 고찰하고, 어떻게 변형되어 다른 연구에 이용되었는지 살펴보았다. 또한 상호작용의 기능과 전략을 설명한 연구들을 토대로 하여 각 발화의 기능을 구분하였다. 이러한 문헌 연구를 바탕으로 분석틀을 마련하였는데, 상호작용 역할과 절 내에서의 기능, 논변 수준에 기여하는 발화를 나타내는 것으로 각 발화를 15개 종류로 구분하여 제시하였다. 도입에 해당하는'시작', '사담', 응답에 해당하는 '단정지음', '응답', '반복', '약간부연', '다른면', '종합', '정교화', '반박정교화', 그리고 반응에 해당하는 '단순응대', '핀잔', '확인', '회의', '설명요청'으로 구분하고, 이전의 발화에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 분석하고 종합한 '향상발화'와 그렇지 않은 '단순발화'로 수준을 구분하였다. 고안한 분석틀로 '에이즈 치료약 개발비와 약소국의 특허권 불인정 주장' 쟁점에 대한 소집단 논변분석 사례를 제시하였다. 분석 결과 고안한 분석틀은 소집단 논변 동안 참여자들이 다양한 견해를 인식하고 관련 과학 지식을 고려했는지를 드러내는데 적절하였다. 또한 소집단 논변 동안 각 참여자의 역할 및 참여자들의 상호작용과 논변의 수준을 관련지어 나타낼 수 있었다. 고안한 분석틀은 정성적인 분석뿐만 아니라 정량적인 분석을 가능하게 함으로서 소집단 구성원들의 상호작용 양상 및 두 소집단의 논변 양상에 대한 비교를 가능하게 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김희경, 송진웅(2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1216-1234.
  2. 도승이(2005). 교실 토론상황에서 학생의 감정, 인지, 행동의 상호작용: 근거이론 분석법을 통한 모델을 중심으로. 교육심리연구, 19(1), 17-39.
  3. 박인옥, 박지영, 조은희, 소경희, 김희백(2005a). 생명윤리와 생명윤리교육에 대한 초등학교 교사의 인식 조사. 한국초등과학교육학회지, 24(5), 571-582.
  4. 박인옥, 박지영, 조은희, 소경희, 김희백(2005b). 생명윤리와 생명윤리교육에 대한 중.고등학교 교사의 인식 조사. 한국생물교육학회지, 33(4), 491-504.
  5. 박지영, 김희백(2011). 초등 예비교사의 사회 속의 과학 쟁점에 대한 논변에서 나타나는 소집단 상호작용 분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 39(4), 653-673.
  6. 박지영, 김희백, 소경희, 조은희(2005). 교과서에 제시된 생명윤리교육 실태 -'국어', '도덕', '사회', '과학',' 기술.가정'교과를 중심으로-. 교육과정평가연구, 8(2), 151-174.
  7. 위수민, 조현준, 김선홍, 이효녕(2009). 학생 특성에 따른 소그룹 논증 수준 분석. 과학교육연구지. 33(1). 1-11.
  8. 이현주, 장현숙(2007). 과학과 관련된 사회적, 윤리적 문제 도입 측면에서의 미국 주별 과학과 교육과 정과 중등 과학교사의 인식 탐색. 교육과정평가연구, 10(1), 189-209.
  9. 정희모(2006). 글쓰기 교육과 협력학습. 삼일.
  10. 조영달(2001). 한국 중등학교 교실수업의 이해. 교육과학사.
  11. Abd-El-Khalick. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classroom. In D. Zeidler, (ed.) The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  12. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. New York: Teachers College Press.
  13. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A. & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1901_1
  14. Badreddine, Z., & Buty, C. (2011). Discursive Reconstruction of the Scientific Story in a Teaching Sequence. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 773-795. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.496475
  15. Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802713507
  16. Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler, (Ed.). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117-138). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  17. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  18. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
  19. Campbell, B., Kaunda, L., Allie, S., Buffler, A. & Lubben, F. (2000). The communication of laboratory investigations by university entrants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 839-853. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<839::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-W
  20. Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos' Scientific Research Programmes as a Framework for Analysing Informal Argumentation about Socioscientific Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582
  21. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qualitative method for advancing social justice research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  22. Crawford, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (1999). Elements of a community of learners in a middle-school science classroom. Science Education, 83, 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6<701::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-2
  23. Duschl, R. A., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2008). Introduction to special issue: Science studies and science education. Science Education, 92(3), 385- 388. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20271
  24. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions. (pp. 3-28). New York: Springer.
  25. Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2011). Trends in Research on Argumentation: Content Analysis of Science Education Journals, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  26. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 99, 915-933.
  27. Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001
  28. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651595
  29. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge, London.
  30. Ha, E., & Song, J. (2009). Patterns of linguistic communication in teaching and learning science: a case study of Korean middle school science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 31-2, 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701660569
  31. Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: Undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1249-1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802178123
  32. Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students' collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085-1109. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1085::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-D
  33. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of science education, 29(11), 1347-1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549
  34. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-G
  35. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, A. R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  36. Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns in children's collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16: 333-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413419
  37. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
  38. Lakatos, I. (1978) Anomalies versus 'crucial experiments.' In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), Imre Lakatos: Philosophical papers. vol. II: Mathematics, science and epistemology (pp. 211-223). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., MacGill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate Science Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education. Driffield: Studies in Education.
  40. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  41. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560753
  42. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855419
  43. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education. 93(2), 233-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20294
  44. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain specific and domain general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488
  45. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.
  46. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  47. Mercer, N. (2008). The Seeds of Time: Why Classroom Dialogue Needs a Temporal Analysis, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793182
  48. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classroom. Maidenhead - Philadelhia: Open university Press.
  49. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  50. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students reasoning practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3) 443-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
  51. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59-92. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
  52. Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborative in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20211
  53. 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
  54. Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4). 접속일 2008년 9월 15일, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html
  55. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  56. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman, (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  57. S-TEAM (Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods) (2010). Report on argumentation and teacher education in Europe. Trondheim, S-TEAM/NTNU.
  58. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  59. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
  60. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
  61. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
  62. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
  63. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  64. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
  65. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 137-162.
  66. Simon, S. & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5) 669-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701854873
  67. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research.(pp.179-199) Dordrecht: Springer.
  68. Soong, B., & Mercer, N. (2011). Improving Students' Revision of Physics Concepts through ICT. Based Co-construction and Prescriptive Tutoring. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1055-1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.489586
  69. Tao, P. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students' understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126748
  70. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
  71. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge (Updated Ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
  72. Varelas, M., Pappas, C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: urban second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (7), 637-666. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20100
  73. von Aufschnaiter, C., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
  74. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Waggoner, C. A. Yi, C. H., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Collaborative Reasoning about stories. Language Arts, 72, 582 589.
  76. Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: an argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 745-777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016
  77. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807-838. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7
  78. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20325
  79. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Cited by

  1. Hermeneutics and Science Education : Focus on Implications for Conceptual Change Theory vol.35, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0085
  2. An Analysis of the Verbal Interaction Patterns of Science-Gifted Students in Science Inquiry Activity vol.35, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0333
  3. Development of an Analytical Framework for Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: Based on Discourse Clusters and Schemes vol.35, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0509
  4. Changes in Students’ Participation and Small Group Norms in Scientific Argumentation vol.45, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9432-z
  5. 논변, 논의 그리고 논증: 개념의 명료화를 위한 문헌조사 연구 vol.33, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119
  6. 과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 수업의 소집단 토론과 전체 학급 토론에서 나타나는 특징 vol.38, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.135
  7. 초등학생들의 소집단 과학 논의 활동에 나타나는 인식적 고려사항 탐색 vol.39, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.59