Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring Secondary Students' Progression in Group Norms and Argumentation Competency through Collaborative Reflection about Small Group Argumentation

소집단 논변활동에 대한 협력적 성찰을 통한 중학생들의 소집단 규범과 논변활동 능력 발달 탐색

  • Received : 2016.11.24
  • Accepted : 2016.12.07
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students' progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students' group norms related to participation were developed, and the students' epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students' group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others' arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

본 연구의 목적은 중학교 학생들이 소집단 논변활동 수업과 협력적 성찰에 참여하면서 나타나는 논변활동에 대한 소집단 규범과 인식적 측면에서 이해 발달 과정 및 논변활동 실행에서의 변화를 살펴보고자 하였다. 참여 학생들은 중학교 1개 학급 내 1개 소집단 구성원으로 선정되었으며, 이들의 학업 성취 수준과 학습접근방식은 다양하였다. 소집단 논변활동 수업은 광합성 단원에 대해 10차시 동안 이루어졌고, 협력적 성찰은 일주일에 한 번씩 총 7번 실시하였다. 학생들의 논변활동 수업과 협력적 성찰을 관찰한 결과 다음과 같은 결과를 확인할 수 있었다. 우선, 협력적 성찰과 소집단 논변활동 수업이 진행됨에 따라 참여 학생들의 논변활동 참여 형태와 관련된 사회적 규범이 발달하였고 논변활동의 인식적 측면에서 이해 수준이 높아지는 것을 관찰할 수 있었다. 또한, 학생들의 논변활동 산물과 논변활동 과정으로 살펴본 소집단 논변활동 능력도 향상되는 것도 확인할 수 있었다. 논변활동 산물 측면에서는 반박 관련 발화의 수가 증가하였고, 논변활동 과정 측면에서는 다양한 학생들이 논변의 구조에서 증거, 정당화, 주장을 제시하면서 논변활동 과정이 복잡해졌다. 협력적 성찰을 통해 학생들의 소집단 규범 및 논변활동의 인식적 측면에서 이해가 발달하고 이와 더불어 논변활동 능력이 발달한 것으로 보인다. 본 연구 결과는 학교 현장의 과학 수업에서 논변활동을 적용하기 위한 좋은 본보기가 될 수 있을 것이다

Keywords

References

  1. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Small group discussions in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
  2. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  3. Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
  4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  5. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278
  6. 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
  7. Choi, J., Lee, S., & Kim, H. B. (2014). Social interaction according to students' approaches to learning science and Their Levels of Scientific Knowledge during Small-Group Argumentation. Biology Education, 42(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.4.371
  8. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  9. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 1-35.
  10. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  12. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  13. Eldon, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participative action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  14. 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
  15. Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 14(3), 205-227. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014003205
  16. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
  17. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and Education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. New York: Routledge.
  18. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "Doing science": Arguments 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
  19. Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
  20. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  21. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
  22. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
  23. Lee, S., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring the impact of students' learning approach on collaborative group modeling of blood circulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 234-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9509-5
  24. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512 - 529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.001
  25. Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 693-720.
  26. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  27. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  28. NGSS Lead States(2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  29. Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008) Interactive patterns and conceptual change during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20211
  30. 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
  31. Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 643-658. https://doi.org/10.1086/461745
  32. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  33. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
  34. 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
  35. Sandoval, W. A., & Cam, A. (2011). Elementary children's judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20426
  36. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  37. Strause, A., & Corbin, J. (1988). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  38. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: Perspectives from the field. Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  39. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Use of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universit Press.
  40. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
  41. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
  42. 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

Cited by

  1. 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
  2. 토의·토론을 활용한 과학 실험 수업이 과학학습동기, 과학탐구능력 및 과학 학업성취도에 미치는 효과 vol.37, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.2.110
  3. 소집단 논변 활동에서 협력적 성찰의 역할 탐색 -학생들의 인식적 고려와 실행을 중심으로- vol.39, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.1