한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제33권5호
  • /
  • Pages.952-962
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중학생의 성취 수준에 따른 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic) 수업의 효과

The Effects of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach on the Middle School Students' Achievements

  • 투고 : 2013.04.30
  • 심사 : 2013.07.22
  • 발행 : 2013.08.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 논의와 글쓰기가 과학 탐구에 접목된 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 수업을 과학 수업 현장에 투입한 후 학생들의 요약 글쓰기, 논리적 사고, 그리고 학업 성취도에 미치는 효과를 알아보고자 하였다. 대도시 소재 여자중학교 2학년 4개 반을 선정하여, 7개 주제에 대하여 실험 집단 2개 반에는 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 수업을, 비교 집단 2개 반에는 교과서 위주의 강의와 안내된 실험 수업을 실시하였다. 학생들의 요약 글쓰기 분석 결과 핵심 개념(big idea) 영역과 과학 개념 설명 영역에서 비교 집단과 실험 집단 사이에 유의미한 차이가 나타났다(p<.05). 학생들의 논리적 사고와 학생들의 학업 성취도에서도 각각 비교 집단과 실험 집단 사이에 유의미한 차이가 나타났다(p<.05). 그리고 학업 성취도에서는 수업 처치와 구획 변인 사이의 상호 작용 효과도 나타났는데(p<.05), 탐구적 과학 글쓰기 수업은 하위 집단에서 유의미한 차이를 보였다(p<.05). 요약 글쓰기에서 논의 과정과 글쓰기 형식에는 유의미한 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나왔는데 유의미한 차이가 있다는 선행 연구 결과를 참고할 때, 이 같은 결과의 원인 분석과 이에 대한 연구가 앞으로도 계속되어야 하겠다.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach on the students' summary writing, logical thinking and achievements for the course. Participants in this study were 132 female students from a girls' middle school. The SWH approach was used for two experimental classes and the typical teacher-centered instructional approach was used for two comparative classes. Summary writing test, logical thinking test (GALT) and achievement test for the course were administered before and after the instruction period. Results of this study indicated that the SWH approach was helpful for students in finding big ideas, understanding science concepts, developing logical thinking abilities and doing well in the course. This study also implied that the SWH approach was effective for the low achieving students.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Jang, K. H., Nam, J. H., & Choi, A. R. (2012). The effects of argument-based inquiry using the Science Writing Heuristic(SWH) approach on argument structure in students' writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1099-1108.
  2. Kwak, K. H. (2005). The effects of teaching and learning strategy using argumentation on cognitive development and science learning in middle school science. (Master's thesis). Pusan National University, Busan.
  3. Kwak, K. H. (2010). The characteristics of the argumentation in different approaches and contexts. (Doctoral dissertation). Pusan National University, Busan.
  4. Kim, J. Y., Seong, S. K., Park, J. Y., & Choi, B. S. (2002). The effects of scientific inquiry experiments emphasizing social interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22(4), 757-767.
  5. Nam, J. H., Kwak, K. H., Jang, K. H., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using Science Writing Heuristic(SWH) in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
  6. Nam, J. H. (2011). Development of Science Writing Heuristic and argumentation-based science instruction model and systematic implementation. Research Report, National Research Foundation of Korea.
  7. Nam, J. H., Koh, M. R., Park, D. C., Lim, J. H., Lee, D. W., & Choi, A. R. (2011a). The effects of argumentationbased general chemistry laboratory on preservice science teachers' understanding of chemistry concepts and writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1077-1091.
  8. Nam, J. H., Lee, D. W., & Cho, H. S. (2011b). The impact of argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory programs on multimodal representation and embeddedness in university students' science writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(6), 931-941.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Burke, K. A., Hand, B., Poock, J., & Greenbowe, T. (2005). Using the Science Writing Heuristic: Training chemistry teaching assistants. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 36-41.
  12. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument intervention in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
  13. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  14. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
  15. Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.
  16. 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
  17. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070252
  18. 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
  19. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  20. 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
  21. Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2012). How does the Science Writing Heuristic approach affect students' performance of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 428-436. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20013A
  22. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  23. National Reserch Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  24. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K- 12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  25. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  26. Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670406
  27. 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
  28. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336643
  29. 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
  30. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
  31. 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
  32. Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1983). The construction and validation of group assessment of logical thinking. Paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, Texas.
  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), 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  34. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students'use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  35. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  37. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Introduction: Does writing promote learning in science? In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom(pp. 1-8). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  38. 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

피인용 문헌

  1. Trends in Research Studies on Scientific Argument and Writing in Korea vol.34, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0107
  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. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 탐구적 과학 글쓰기를 적용한 과학 수업의 효과에 대한 중학교 과학 영재들의 인식 vol.64, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.5.277