Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploration of Discursive-Epistemic Mechanisms in High School Earth Science Lessons

고등학교 지구과학 수업의 담화적-인식적 기제 탐색

  • Oh, Phil Seok (Department of Science Education, Gyeongin National University of Education) ;
  • Ahn, Yumin (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation)
  • Received : 2015.01.22
  • Accepted : 2015.08.05
  • Published : 2015.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore discursive-epistemic mechanisms in high school earth science lessons. A total of 11 video recordings of earth science lessons were collected from three inservice high school teachers. The video recordings were all transcribed and analyzed by employing the discourse analysis framework used in relevant previous studies. In analysis, we identified discursive-epistemic mechanisms as functional assemblies for fulfilling particular epistemic functions in the earth science lessons. The characteristics of these mechanisms were described according to their epistemic functions. The findings of the study were compared with those of previous studies to highlight the characteristics of discursive-epistemic mechanisms in the earth science classrooms. Analyses of middle school science lessons and of science lessons in alternative forms, as well as studies using extended research methods such as indepth interviews with teachers, were suggested as implications for future research.

본 연구의 목적은 우리나라 고등학교 지구과학 수업의 담화적-인식적 기제들을 탐색하는 것이었다. 세 명의 현직 고등학교 교사들로부터 총 11편의 지구과학 수업 녹화물을 수집하였으며, 모두 전사한 후, 선행 연구에서 사용한 담화 분석틀을 이용하여 분석하였다. 그 결과로 고등학교 지구과학 수업에서 특정한 인식적 기능을 담당하는 기능적 집합으로서 담화적-인식적 기제들을 확인하였고, 그 특징을 인식적 기능을 중심으로 기술하였다. 또, 분석 결과를 선행 연구의 결과와 비교하여 지구 과학 수업의 담화적-인식적 기제들의 특징을 강조하였다. 앞으로의 연구를 위한 시사점으로 중학교 과학 수업과 대안적인 형태의 과학 수업에 대한 분석, 교사들과의 심층 면담과 같은 확대된 연구 방법을 통한 연구를 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Berland, L., 2011, Explaining variations in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 625-664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591718
  2. Berland, L.K., Schwarz, C.V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A.S., and Reiser, B.J., in press, Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  3. Campbell, T., Oh, P.S., and Neilson, D., 2012, Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (MBI) classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2393-2419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.704552
  4. Cazden, C.B., 1988, Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann, Portmouth, NH, 230 p.
  5. Chinn, C.A. and Malhotra, B.A., 2002, Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  6. Christodoulou, A. and Osborne, J., 2014, The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1275-1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166
  7. Gooding, D., 1990, Experiment and the meaning making. Springer, the Netherlands, 311 p.
  8. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R.E., and Redish, E.F., 2005, Resources, framing, and transfer. In Mestre, J. (ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 89-120.
  9. Hodson, D., 1996, Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027980280201
  10. Kim, H., Lee, S.-K., and Kim, C.-J., 2010, An exploratory analysis of discourse types and meaning-making strategies used by a beginning teacher in secondary science class. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 31, 647-655. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2010.31.6.647
  11. Kim, Y.C., 2012, Qualitative research methodology 1: Bricoleur (2nd ed.). Academy Press, Paju, 700 p. (in Korean)
  12. Kirschner, P.A., 1992, Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1, 273-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430277
  13. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R.E., 2006, Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  14. Knorr-Cetina, K., 1999, Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 329 p.
  15. Kwak, Y., 2011, A study on actual conditions and ways to improve primary school science teaching. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 32, 422-434. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2011.32.4.422
  16. Leach, J. and Scott, P., 2003, Individual and sociocultural perspectives on learning in science education. Science & Education, 12, 91-113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022665519862
  17. Lemke, J.L., 1990, Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 261 p.
  18. Millar, R., 1998, Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for. In Wellington, J. (ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? Routledge, London, UK, 16-31.
  19. Mortimer, E.F. and Scott, P.H., 2003, Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK, 141 p.
  20. NGSS Lead States, 2013, Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 324 p.
  21. Oh, P.S., 2014, Characteristics of teacher learning and changes in teachers' epistemic beliefs within a learning community of elementary science teachers. Elementary Science Education, 33, 683-699. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.4.683
  22. Oh, P.S. and Ahn, Y., 2013, An analysis of classroom discourse as an epistemic practice: Based on elementary science classrooms. Elementary Science Education, 32, 269-284. (in Korean)
  23. Oh, P.S. and Campbell, T., 2013, Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building 'classroom science knowledge' (CSK). Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33, 597-625. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.3.597
  24. Oh, P.S., Jon, W.S., and Yoo, J.-M., 2007, Analysis of scientific models in the earth domain of the 10th grade science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 28, 393-404. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2007.28.4.393
  25. Pimentel, D.S. and McNeill, K.L., 2013, Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers' beliefs. Science Education, 97, 367-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061
  26. Russ, R.S., 2014, Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science. Science Education, 98, 388-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21106
  27. Sandoval, W.A., 2015, Epistemic goals. In Gunstone, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Science Education. Springer, the Netherlands, 393-398.
  28. Wellington, J., 1998, Practical work in school science: Which way now? Routledge, London, UK, 312 p.