DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Narrative Characteristics in High School Students' Geological Field Trip Reports: the Relationship Between the Narrative Mode of Thought and the Academic Achievement

지질 답사 보고서에 나타난 고등학생들의 내러티브 특성: 내러티브적 사고와 학업 성취도의 관계

  • Received : 2015.07.02
  • Accepted : 2015.08.24
  • Published : 2015.08.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to draw an educational implication by analyzing the context of narrative texts, students' narrative thinking, and their academic achievement. We investigated text types in students' geological field trip reports, the reason why students favors narrative texts, the relationship between narrative texts and their scientific knowledge recall, and the relationship between narrative thought and academic achievement. All students used expository texts, 82% of them expressed argumentative texts, and 36% of them used narrative texts. It is likely that students use more narrative texts because students were in the context of outdoor activity and so, their emotional feelings were more activated than when they are doing lab activities. The academic characteristics of earth science seemed to contribute more narrative texts in students' reports. The post-test revealed that students with narrative texts recalled better than the others. On the other hand, there were no statistically meaningful differences in academic achievement between the two groups. However, we have noted that female students whose reports contain narrative texts achieved significantly higher scores than female students whose reports are without narrative texts. From in-depth interviews, we found that students who properly used both paradigmatic and narrative mode of thought were in a more advantageous position than those who used narrative thought only. It was also found that some narratively thinking students tended to feel uncomfortable with the way of learning or evaluating questions about science. In the future, a complementary approach of narrative and paradigmatic mode of thoughts would be encouraged by understanding students' tendency of thinking.

이 연구는 고등학생들의 지질 답사 보고서에 나타난 내러티브 텍스트와 Bruner가 제시한 두 가지 사고 양식 - 패러다임적 사고와 내러티브적 사고 그리고 학업 성취도가 어떻게 관련되는 지 살펴보고자 했다. 연구의 주요 목표는 특정한 상황에서 나타난 내러티브 텍스트의 사용여부로 학생들의 내러티브적 사고 경향을 구별하고, 우세한 사고 경향에 따라 인지적 성취 결과에 차이가 나는지 분석하는 것이다. 고등학교 2학년 학생 145명의 지질 답사 보고서의 텍스트 분석과 함께 답사지에 대한 회상 검사, 학업 성취도, 면담을 통하여 양적, 질적 연구를 수행했다. 텍스트 분석 결과, 학생들의 보고서에는 설명적, 논증적 텍스트와 함께 내러티브 텍스트가 상당 수 발견되었는데 이는 야외 답사지에서 학생들이 느끼는 심리적 상황과 지구과학 학습 및 현행 교육과정의 특징과 관련이 있는 것으로 추측된다. 내러티브 텍스트로 보고서의 내용을 재구성한 학생들은 그렇지 않은 학생들에 비하여 3개월 후에 실시한 회상 검사에서 높은 점수를 받았으나, 지구과학 I의 학업 성취도에서는 여학생들의 경우에만 더 높은 성취도가 나타났다. 내러티브 텍스트의 사용 여부로 내러티브적 사고와 패러다임적 사고 경향을 판단할 수 있는지 학생들과의 면담을 병행하여 조사한 결과, 내러티브 텍스트 사용과 사고 경향이 일치하지 않는 학생의 사례가 나타났다. 학습 내용에 따라 내러티브적 사고와 패러다임적 사고를 유연하게 사용할 수 있는 학생은 학습에 성공적이며 학업 성취도에서 좋은 결과를 나타내는 것으로 조사되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alvermann, D. E., Hynd, C. E., & Qian, G. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 146-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941293
  2. Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1683-1707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802380695
  3. Banister, & Ryan (2001). Developing science concepts through story-telling. School Science Review, 83, 75-83.
  4. Bloom, J. W. (1992). The development of scientific knowledge in elementary school children: A context for meaning and perspective. Science Education, 76(4), 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760405
  5. Braud, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373-1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  7. Cha, H., Kim, C., & Maeng, S. (2011). Linguistic characteristics of middle school students' writing on earth science themes through analysis of its genre and register. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 32(1), 84-98. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2011.32.1.84
  8. Cho, K., Byeon, H., & Kim, C. (2002). Development of geological field courses and the effect of field study on th affective domain in science and on achievement of students. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 23(8), 649-658.
  9. Cho, H., & Nam, J. (2014). The impact of the argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing implemented in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 583-592. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0583
  10. Cohen, S., & Shires, L. M. (1988). Telling stories: A theoretical analysis of narrative fiction. London and New York: Routledge.
  11. Craig, M. T., & Yore, L. D. (1995). Middle school students' meta cognitive knowledge about science reading and science text: An interview study. Reading Psychology, 16(2), 169-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271950160203
  12. Cunningham, L. J., & Gall, M. D. (1990). The effects of expository and narrative prose on student achievement and attitudes toward textbooks. Journal of Experimental Education, 58, 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1990.10806532
  13. Egan, K. (1989). Teaching as story-telling. London: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Feldman, C. F., & Kalmar, D. A. (1996). Some educational implications of genre-based mental models: The interpretive cognition of text understanding. In Olson, & Torrance (Ed), The handbook of education and human development: new models of learning, teaching, and schooling. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
  15. Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985-1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310911
  16. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
  17. Graesser, A. C., Hauft-Smith, K., Cohen, A. D., & Pyles, L. D. (1980). Advanced outlines, familiarity, and text genre on retention or prose. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 281-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1980.11011745
  18. Gwon, M., & Kim, S. (2014). The effects of storytelling using history of science on high school students' understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory. Biology Education, 42(4), 386-397. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.4.386
  19. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relation: Regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge, In J. R. Martin and Robert Veel (Ed.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science, London and New York: Routledge.
  20. Han, S. (1997). Narrative mode of thought and its educative meaning. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(1), 400-423.
  21. Han, S. (2005). On the nature of inference and emotion in narrative and scientific contexts. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(2), 39-64.
  22. Hartley, J. T. (1986). Reader and text variables as determinants of discourse memory in adulthood and aging. Psychology and Aging, 5, 356-368.
  23. Holton, G. (1988). Thematic origins of scientific thoughts: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge: Harvard university press.
  24. Hong, J. (2012). The effects of making science newspaper activity on the science inquiry process ability of elementary school students and analysing the writing context. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(2), 146-153.
  25. Jo, H., & Choi, A. (2015). The effect of the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach: Focus on high school chemistry. Journal of the Korean chemical society, 59(1). 69-77. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.1.69
  26. Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1994). Abductive inference, computation philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Ju, T. (2008). The effect of high school 'society & culture' narrative text style on subject preferences and academic achievements. Social Studies Education, 7(1), 133-156.
  28. Kang, B., & Jeon, K. (2014). The effect of student-centered storytelling on students' learning motivation and attitude in elementary science class. Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 657-669. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2014.38.3.657
  29. Kang, H. (2013). In search of the value of narrative in Dewey and Bruner's educational theory. The Korean Philosophy of Education Society, 50, 141-171.
  30. Keys, C. W. (1994). The development scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignment: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1003-1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310912
  31. Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: an analysis of middle school student's written discourse about scientific investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1044::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J
  32. Kim, C., Park, I., An, H., Oh, P., Kim, D., & Park, Y. (2005). Development of an inquiry analysis framework based on the features of earth science inquiry methodology and the analysis of inquiry activities in the 8th grade 'Earth History and Diastrophism' unit. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 26(8), p.751-758.
  33. Kim, D. (2011). Effects of storytelling-based science class on middle school students' understanding of the structures and functions of a human body. Biology Education, 39(1), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2011.39.1.18
  34. Kim, M., & Kim B. (2002). Narrative thought and ITS implecation on the science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(4), 851-861.
  35. Kim, M., & Kim B. (2003). A study on the objectivity of scientific knowledge: Focused on Michael Polanyi's epistemology. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(1), 100-116.
  36. Kim, S., & Ha, D. (2006). The relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll(CHC) cognitive abilities and narrative/expository text. Journal of Reading Research, 16, 253-267.
  37. Kim, Y. (2012). Analogy, metaphor and creativity in science education. Seoul: Book's hill.
  38. Kim, Y., Park, Y., Park, H., Shin, D., Jung, J., & Song, S. (2014). World of science education. Seoul: Book's hill.
  39. Kintsch, W., & Young, S. R. (1984). Selective recall of decision-relevant information from texts. Memory and Cognition, 12, 112-117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198424
  40. Klein, P. D., & Rose, M. A. (2010) Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior student for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 433-461. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.4
  41. Lee, I. (2010). A study of engineering experimental report for effective technical writing education. Modern Literature Studies. 40, 551-578.
  42. Lee, J. (2013). A study of scientific text for writing education. Field Studies in Korean Language Education, 7(2), 97-127.
  43. Lee, S., & Lee, Y. (2012). The effect of 'Solar system and star' using story-telling skill on science learning motivation and space perception ability. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 5(1), 105-113.
  44. Lee, H. (2011). Abduction as methodology of cultural studies. Korean Journal of Communication, & Information, 54, 76-97.
  45. Lee, H., & Shim, K. (2012). Analysis of writing characteristics of scientifically gifted students by explaining cell. Journal of Gifted/talented Education, 22(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.1.141
  46. Lee, H., & Yoo, J. (2004). Effect of instruction utilizing history of science on th science achievement and attitude of middle school students; In the chapter of 'Water cycle and weather change'. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 25(7), 565-575.
  47. Lemke (1990) Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex publishing.
  48. Lim, H., & Kim, H. (2011). A comparison of socio-linguistic characteristics and instructional influences of different types of informational science texts. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education. 30(2), 232-241.
  49. Maeng, S., Park, M., Lee, J., & Kim, C. (2007). A case study of middle school students's abductive inference during a geological field excursion. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 818-831.
  50. McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
  51. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2000). 2009 Science Education Curriculum. Notification No. 2009-41 of the Ministry of Education. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
  52. Nadelson. L. S., & Jordan. J. R. (2012). Student attitudes toward and recall of outside day: An environmental science field trip. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 220-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.576715
  53. Nam, J., Kwak, K., Jang, K., & 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.
  54. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practice, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  55. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535-563. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063
  56. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  57. Orion, N. (1993). A practical model for the development and implementation of field trips, as an integrated part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1993.tb12254.x
  58. Orion, N. (1994). A shot-term and long-term study of a science investigation project in geology, used b mon-science high school students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 12(2), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514940120209
  59. Orion, Nir., & Hofstein, Avi (1991). The measurement of students' attitudes towards scientific field trips. Science Education, 75(5), 513-523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750503
  60. Orion, Nir., & Hofstein, Avi (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097-1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311005
  61. Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670406
  62. Osborne, J. (1997). Practical alternatives. School Science Review, 78(285), 61-66.
  63. 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 genre of science writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(8), 824-847.
  64. Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings volume 2, 1893-1913. Indiana University Press.
  65. Penney, K., Norris, Phillips, & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3:4, 415-436.
  66. Polkinghorne, D. E., (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. New York: State University of New York Press.
  67. Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Kvasnicak, R. (2007). Short-term effects of field programme on students' knowledge and attitude toward biology: a Slovak experience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9044-8
  68. Purcell-Gate, Duke, & Martineau (2007). Learning to read and write genrespecific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading research quarterly, 42(1), 8-45. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.1.1
  69. Reeves (2005). The language of science. London and New york: Routledge.
  70. Roller, C. M., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of narrative and expository organizational instruction on sixth-grade children's comprehension of expository and narrative prose. Reading psychology: An international quarterly, 6, 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271850060104
  71. Rowell, P. (1998). The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19-56.
  72. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C., (1986). Research on written composition. In Wittrock, M. (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), 778-799. New York: Macmilan.
  73. Schwitzgebel, E. (1999). Children's theories and the drive to explain. Science & Education, 8, 457-488. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008633709447
  74. 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
  75. Shin, J., & Choi, A. (2014). Trends in research studies on scientific argument and writing in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0107
  76. Shim, K., & Song, S. (2011). Study on the critical thinking of high school students through scientific writing about bioethical issue. The Korean Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 288-296.
  77. Simon, Erduran, & Osborne (2006). Learning teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  78. Son, J., & Jeong, E. (2013). Application and development of a storytelling teaching-learning method using the Science Writing Heuristic. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 17(3), 709-727. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.3.709
  79. Sung, T. (2015). Modern Basic Statistics. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  80. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  81. Vygotsky (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  82. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  83. Wolfe, & Mienko (2007). Learning and memory of factual content from narrative and expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 541-564. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X143902
  84. Yang, S., & Kang, P. (1987). Geology in the field. Seoul: Hyungseul.
  85. 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
  86. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. I., & 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
  87. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336973
  88. Yu, E., Lee, S., & Kim, C. (2007). Investigating science-talented students' understanding and meaning generation about the earth systems based on their geological field trip reports. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 28(6), 671-683.

Cited by

  1. 국내외 교과서에 수록된 극지 관련 내용 분석 vol.42, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5467/jkess.2021.42.2.201
  2. 언어 네트워크를 이용한 야외지질답사 관련 연구 동향 분석: 최근 21년(2000~2020년)을 중심으로 vol.14, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2021.14.2.173