Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The Process of Group Writing and Processes Factor

집단글쓰기수업의 단계별 하위요소 탐색

  • Received : 2015.06.10
  • Accepted : 2015.08.18
  • Published : 2015.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the components of group writing through three steps of group writing course consist of collecting information, organizing information, and revision. A total of 19 pre-service teachers who took the science argumentation course participated in the group writing activity. They made up a group of four or five and chose one subject from among socioscientific issues for group writing. The discussion contents and writing were analyzed inductively to find the group writing components at every step. The results of the study are as follows: First, components in the step of collecting information were (1) sharing information (2) understanding information. and (3)judging information. Second, components in the step of organizing information were (1) categorizing information, (2) decentralization, (3) balancing information, and (4) reflection. The last, process components in the step of revision were (1) unification of form, (2) global review, and (3) improving readability.

본 연구는 예비 과학교사들의 집단 글쓰기 활동을 통해 집단 글쓰기 과정의 3단계인 정보수집, 정보의 논리적 조직, 검토 단계에서 나타나는 하위요소를 파악하고자 하는데 목표를 두고 있다. 이를 위하여 과학교과 논리 및 논술을 수강하는 19명의 예비 과학교사들을 대상으로 집단 글쓰기 수업을 구성하여 그 과정을 탐색하였다. 집단 글쓰기는 예비 과학교사들로 하여금 과학과 관련된 사회적 쟁점들 중 하나를 선택하여 작성하도록 하였으며, 4~5명으로 형성된 집단을 구성하여 실행되었다. 집단 글쓰기 3단계의 하위요소 분석은 집단별 토의내용과 작성한 글을 대상으로 귀납적으로 분석하여 결과를 도출하였다. 연구결과, 예비 과학교사들의 집단 글쓰기 과정의 3단계에서 다음과 같은 하위 요소가 추출되었다. 정보수집 단계에서는 정보 공유, 정보이해, 정보판별의 하위요소가 추출되었으며, 정보의 논리적 조직 단계에서는 정보의 범주화, 분산, 정보의 균형화, 성찰이라는 하위요소가 분석되었다. 마지막으로 검토 단계에서는 글 형식 통일, 전체적 글의 흐름검토, 가독성 고려라는 하위요소가 추출되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
  2. Anders, P. L., & Guzzetti, B. J. (1996). Literacy instruction in the content areas. Harcourt Brace College Pub.
  3. Anson, C. M. (1989). Writing and response: theory, practice, and research. kenyon Rd., Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  4. Bar-Ilan, J. & Peritz, B.C. (2002). Informetric theories and methods for exploring the internet: An analytical survey of recent research literature. Library Trends, 50(3): 371-392.
  5. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2002). Beliefs about science: how does science instruction contribute. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Ed), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321-346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  6. Chalk, J. C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2005). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing process for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126974
  7. Chung, Y., Mun, K. & Kim, S.-W. (2010). Exploration of socioscientific issues (SSI) in the science textbook. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 10(3), 435-456.
  8. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the Educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.
  9. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
  10. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Altamira Press.
  11. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 365-387.
  12. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and instruction, 19(4), 354-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001
  13. Koo, S., & Park, I. (2010). Development of science writing teaching strategy and its application to elementary science classes. Elementary Science Education, 29(4), 427-440.
  14. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a 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
  15. Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers' epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<47::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P
  16. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Greg & E. R. Steinberg (Ed), Cognitive proceses in writing(pp.3-30). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  17. Howard, V. A. (1990). Thinking on paper: A philosopher's look at writing. In V. A. Howard (Ed), Varieties of Thinking: Essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education Research Center (pp.84-92). NY: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.
  18. Kang, S., Jo, J., & Noh, T. (2013). A study on writing process components and writing strategies in argumentative writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1418-1430. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1418
  19. Kim, Y. (2013). Qualitative Research I. Seoul: Academy Press.
  20. Koo, S., & Park, I. (2010). Development of science writing teaching strategy and its application to elementary science classes, Elementatry Science Education, 29(4), 427-440.
  21. Lee, H., Cho, H., & Sohn, J. (2009). The Teachers' View on Using Argumentation in School Scienc. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(6), 666-679.
  22. Lee, J. (1997). The research on collaborative small group writing, Journal of Cheongram Korean Language Education, 17, 263-312.
  23. Lee, J. (2002). The principle and method of writing education- approach of based writing instruction. Seoul: kyoyookbook.
  24. Lee, S., Lee, G., Choi, C., & Shin, M. (2012). Analyzing Coordination of Theory and Evidence Presented in Pre-service Elementary Teachers' Science Writing for Inquiry Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 201-209. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.2.201
  25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. LA: Sage.
  26. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST) (2011). Middle School Curriculum modified on 2009 (Appendix 3). Released by MEST. No. 2011-361.
  27. Nam, J., Koh, M., Bak, D., Lim, J., Lee, D., & Choi, A. (2011). The Effects of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory on Preservice Science Teachers' Understanding of Chemistry Concepts and Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 21(8), 1077-1091.
  28. Nam, K., Lee, B., & Lee, S. (2004). The effect of science journal writing on the science-related affective domain of scientifically gifted students at middle school level, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education. 24(6), 1272-1282.
  29. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  30. Newell, G. E., & Winograd, P. (1989). The effects of writing on learning from expository text. Written Communication, 6(2), 196-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006002004
  31. 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
  32. Owens, C. V. (2000). Teachers' responses to science writing. Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry, 15(1), 22-35.
  33. Park, J., Yu, E., Lee, S., & Kim, C. (2009). An analysis of science writing by high school students through the argumentation structure instruction: focus on writing tasks based on genres of science writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(8), 824-847.
  34. Park, S., & Choi, A. (2014). Analysis of Student Science Writing and Perception on Argument-Based Claim and Evidence Writing Approach. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(8), 787-794. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.8.0787
  35. Park, S., Choi, M., & Lee, S. (2008). A study on effects of well-structured cognitive reflection journal on metacognition and learning achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 11(1), 5-13.
  36. Park, Y. (2000). On the Conceptualization of the Korean "Idea metaphor". The Society of Semantics. 7, 49-66.
  37. Park, Y. (2012). Models of cognitive processes in writing. Research on Writing, 16, 231-257.
  38. 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
  39. Rohrbaugh, C. C., & Shanteau, J. (1999). Context, process, and experience: Research on applied judgment and decision making. In F. T. Durso (Eds), Handbook of applied cognition(pp. 115-140). NY: John Wiley.
  40. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NY: Basic Books.
  41. Sfard, A. (2002). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1-3), 13-57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014097416157
  42. Shin, J., Shin, Y., Yoon, H., & Woo, A. (2013). The effects of science writing on middle school students' science-related attitude, learning motivation, and academic achievement. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education. 33(2), 511-521. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.511
  43. Son, J. (2009). The study of scientifically gifted students' scientific thinking and creative problem solving ability through science writing. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 1(3), 21-32.
  44. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations little. Brown ISBN 0-316-86173-1.
  45. Jeon, S., & Park, J. (2014). Analysis of relationships of scientific communication skills, science process skills, logical thinking skills, and academic achievement level of elementary school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(7), 647-655. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.7.0647
  46. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin.
  47. Seo, S. (2013). The study on evaluation of the college composition curriculum. The Korean Conference on College Composition and Communication, (6), 41-75.
  48. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
  49. Yang, C., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2014). An Exploratory Investigation of the Imaginative Writing Processes of Middle School Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(5), 511-521. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.5.0511
  50. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(4), 338-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008
  51. You, J., Kang, S., Kim, J., & Noh, T. (2013). An investigation of students' science writing processes using think-aloud method. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(5), 881-892. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.881