참고문헌
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 1-35.
- Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- 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
- 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
- Eldon, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participative action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and Education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. New York: Routledge.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- NGSS Lead States(2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Strause, A., & Corbin, J. (1988). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: Perspectives from the field. Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
- Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Use of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universit Press.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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