참고문헌
- Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition : A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080303
- Berland, L. K, & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
- 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
- Bloome, D., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroom lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 265-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179417
- Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385
- Cho, H., Chang, J., & Kim, H. (2013). Epistemic level in middle school students' small-group argumentation using first-hand or second-hand data. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(2), 486-500. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.486
- Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change-some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74(5), 555-569. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740506
- Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
- Elby, A. (1999). Another reason that physics students learn by rote. American Journal of Physics, 67(S1), S52-S57. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19081
- Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, 409-434.
- Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
- 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, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
- Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. NY: Harper & Row.
- Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, (pp. 89-120). Information Age Publishing.
- Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20373
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez- Aleixandre(Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, 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
- Jung, J., & Kim, H. (2010). Influence of ACESE on high school students' argumentative structure and evolutionary conception. Biology Education, 37(4), 526-542.
- Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity : Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
- Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
- Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
- Lee, K., Yun, S., & Kim, H. (2012). Understanding of middle school students' small group argumentation of plant and animal classification: Focusing on the effects of leader. Biology Education, 40(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.1.71
- Lising, L., & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 73(4), 372-382. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1848115
- Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6
- 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
- Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. F. Redish & Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the enrico fermi summer school course, CLVI, (pp. 1-63). Italian Physical Society: Italy.
- Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
- Russ, R. S., Lee, V. R., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic students understandings of the discourse interaction. Science Education, 96(4), 573-599. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21014
- Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21063
- Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp.71-88). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
- Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
- Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000902797379
- Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science Education, 12(4), 341-363. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024450509847
- Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in Discourse. NY: Oxford University Press.
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Yun, S., & Kim, H. (2011). Development and application of the scientific inquiry tasks for small group argumentation, Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 31(5), 694-708.
- 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
피인용 문헌
- 실험 설계에서 나타난 소집단 논변활동 탐색: 활동에 대한 인식적 목표와 인식적 이해를 중심으로 vol.36, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
- 과학적 모형 구성 과정에서 나타난 사고 질문의 개념적 자원 활성화의 이해 -인식론적 프레이밍과 위치 짓기 프레이밍을 중심으로- vol.36, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0471
- 중등 과학교육에서 소집단을 활용한 교수학습 연구 분석 및 '소집단 연구' 방법론 고찰 vol.45, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.3.437
- 머신 러닝을 활용한 과학 논변 구성 요소 코딩 자동화 가능성 탐색 연구 vol.38, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.219
- 비생산적 논변에서 생산적 논변으로의 실행 변화 탐색 -인식론적 자원과 맥락을 중심으로- vol.41, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.3.193