Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Characteristics of Small Group Discussions About Friction in Terms of the Formation of Common Context

공통맥락 형성의 관점에서 살펴본 마찰력에 대한 소집단 토론의 특징

  • Received : 2017.02.24
  • Accepted : 2017.04.21
  • Published : 2017.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we observed the characteristics of students' small group discussions concerning the four friction problems. Participants in this study were 22 students of upper-level mechanics course and their small group discussions have been transcribed. As a result, we found that the phenomenon in this study is well defined by 'common context.' The process of formation of the common context was explicitly observed when students discussed about the identification of the problem situation (especially the movement of A in the second problem), the nature of friction and various forces, inertial frame, and noninertial reference frame. Meanwhile, the formation of common context was tacit when students thought they already had a common context. For example, students did not discuss about the friction rule itself because they had confidence about the knowledge. We also found that the presence of the questioner, receiver, and the other opinion were important for positive group discussions. The result of this study would be meaningful because it analyzed how the theme affects the group discussion beyond the limit of previous studies of just analyzing the form or pattern of discourse.

본 연구에서 연구자는 학생들이 마찰력을 주제로 소집단 토론을 진행할 때 어떤 특성을 보이는지 살펴보았고, 공통맥락이라는 키워드가 연구에서 나타난 현상을 잘 설명한다고 생각하여 이 용어를 재정의하고 공통맥락 형성의 관점에서 학생들의 토론 양상을 살펴보았다. 특히 학생들이 논의하는 과정에서 공통맥락의 형성 과정이 구성원들의 논의를 거쳐 명시적으로 나타나는지, 공통맥락이 이미 형성되어 있다고 암묵적으로 가정하거나 간단한 확인만 거치는지에 대해 살펴보았다. 연구 결과 공통맥락의 형성 과정이 명시적으로 드러난 사례로는 문제 상황의 확인(특히 2번 문제에서 A의 운동), 마찰력의 본성 및 특성, 여러 가지 힘들의 성질, 관성계 및 비관성계와 관련한 논의 등이 있었다. 한편, 구성원들이 공통맥락이 이미 암묵적으로 형성 되어 있다고 가정하고 논의를 이어 나간 것 중 본 연구에서 특징적인 것으로는 마찰력 규칙에 대한 지식이 있었고, 마찰력 규칙을 오용하는 사례도 찾아볼 수 있었다. 한편, 연구자는 질문자, 수용자, 다른 의견을 가진 학생의 존재가 긍정적인 조별 토론에 중요하다는 사실을 발견했고, 특히 질문자는 본 연구 사례에서 매우 중요한 역할을 하였음을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구의 결과는 담화의 형태를 중심으로 분석하는 선행연구들과는 달리 구체적인 수업의 주제가 소집단 조별 토론에 어떤 영향을 주는지 분석했다는 점에서 그 의의를 가진다고 본다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arons, A. B. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  2. ASM, I. (1992). Friction, lubrication and wear technology ASM handbook. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
  3. Barron, B. (2003). When Smart Groups Fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
  4. Besson, U., Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., & Mascheretti, P. (2007). How to teach friction: Experiments and models. American Journal of Physics, 75(12), 1106-1113. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2779881
  5. Byun, T., & Lee, G. (2014). Why students still can't solve physics problems after solving over 2000 problems. American Journal of Physics, 82(9), 906-913. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4881606
  6. Carvalho, P. S., & e Sousa, A. S. (2005). Rotation in secondary school: teaching the effects of frictional force. Physics Education, 40(3), 257. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/40/3/007
  7. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge : the development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Routledge.
  8. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. L. (2006). The Feynman lectures on physics. Redwood City, Calif: Addison-Wesley.
  9. Ha, S., Cheong, Y. W., Byun, T., & Lee, G. (2009). Emerging Role of Primary Leader in Group Interaction with Mechanics Problems During Upper-level Mechanics Course. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 29(3), 291-303.
  10. Ha, S., & Lee, G. (2011). Understanding Students' Difficulties and Their Structure in Learning Friction in Upper Level Mechanics Course via Weekly Report. New Phys.: Sae Mulli, 61(9), 840-849.
  11. Ha, S., & Lee, G. (2015a). Features of Description about Friction in Introductory Physics Textbook : Focused on Interlocking and Adhesion Theory. New Phys.: Sae Mulli, 65(4), 358-368. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.65.358
  12. Ha, S., & Lee, G. (2015b). Hermeneutics and Science Education : Focus on Implications for Conceptual Change Theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(1), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0085
  13. Ha, S., Lee, G., & Kalman, C. S. (2013). Workshop on Friction: Understanding and Addressing Students' Difficulties in Learning Science through a Hermeneutical Perspective. Science & Education, 22(6), 1423-1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9465-5
  14. Hong, S. (2010). A Study of Student's Concept Creation using a Basic Mechanical Conception about Friction. New Phys.: Sae Mulli, 60(2), 142-149. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.60.142
  15. Kang, E., Kim, C.-J., Choe, S.-U., Yoo, J., Park, H., Lee, S., & Kim, H.-B. (2012). Small Group Interaction and Norms in the Process of Constructing a Model for Blood Flow in the Heart. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 372-387. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.2.372
  16. Kim, C.-J., Oh, P. S., O, Y. S., & Park, Y.-S. (2005). The Relationship Between the Patterns of Student Participation in Small Group Interaction and Their Achievement Measured by Individual Portfolios. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(7), 837-848.
  17. Kim, E., & Pak, S.-J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1484151
  18. Kim, H. S., Lee, E. K., & Kang, S. J. (2006). Analysis of Approachs to Learning Based on Student-Student Verbal Interactions according to the Type of Inquiry Experiments Using Everyday Materials. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(1), 16-24.
  19. Kim, S.-J., Kim, K.-H., Park, J., & Park, J. (2007). A Case Study on Social Interaction According to Gender-Grouping. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(7), 559-569.
  20. Kim, Y., & An, M.-Y. (2013). Analysis of Secondary Students' Difficulty in Understanding the Frictional Force Concept and a Suggestion for Its Teaching Strategy. New Phys.: Sae Mulli, 63(10), 1077-1084. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.63.1077
  21. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of management, 20(2), 403-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(94)90021-3
  22. Ko, M., & Yang, I. (2013). Analysis on the Relationship Between the Construct Level of Analogical Reasoning and the Construction of Explanatory Model Observed in Small Group Discussions on Scientific Problem Solving. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(2), 522-537. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.522
  23. Lee, J. (2015). Analysis of the Refinement of Shared Mental Model in Science-Gifted Students' Collaborative Problem Solving Process. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 1049-1062. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.1049
  24. Lee, M.-S., Jo, K.-H., & Song, J.-W. (2004). Types and Frequencies of Questions - Answers by Middle School Students in a Small Group Activities During School Experiments. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(2), 277-286.
  25. Li, Y., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Dong, T., Archodidou, A., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., Clark, A.-M., Wu, X., Jadallah, M., & Miller, B. (2007). Emergent Leadership in Children's Discussion Groups. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 75-111.
  26. Ludema, K. C. (1996). Friction, wear, lubrication: a textbook in tribology. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  27. Maeng, S., Park, Y.-S., & Kim, C.-J. (2013). Methodological Review of the Research on Argumentative Discourse Focused on Analyzing Collaborative Construction and Epistemic Enactments of Argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 840-862. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.840
  28. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(2), 273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
  29. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  30. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  31. Oh, P. S., Lee, S.-K., & Kim, C.-J. (2007). Cases of Science Classroom Discourse Analyzed from the Perspective of Knowledge-Sharing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(4), 297-308.
  32. Park, J., & Lee, K. (2012). The Impact of Grouping Methods on Free Inquiry Implementation: The Case of Two Middle Schools Adopting Different Grouping Methods. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 686-702. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.686
  33. Park, M., Jeong, J., & Cheong, C. (2006). Students' Characteristics of the Reflective Inquiry Dispositions According to the Modes of Interaction of Small Group in High School Earth Science Inquiry Class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(7), 843-855.
  34. Reichertz, J. (2004). Objective Hermeneutics and Hermeneutic Sociology of Knowledge. In B. Jenner, U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
  35. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: 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
  36. Salazar, A., Sanchez-Lavega, A., & Arriandiaga, M. A. (1990). Is the frictional force always opposed to the motion? Physics Education, 25(2), 82-85. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/25/2/001
  37. Seong, S. K., & Choi, B. S. (2007). Change and Characteristics of Interactions in a Heterogeneous Group in Scientific Inquiry Experiments. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 870-880.
  38. Shim, Y., Kim, C.-J., Choe, S.-U., Kim, H.-B., Yoo, J., Park, H., Kim, H., Park, K.-M., & Jang, S. (2015). Exploring Small Group Features of the Social-Construction Process of Scientific Model in a Combustion Class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0217
  39. Urbakh, M., & Meyer, E. (2010). Nanotribology: The renaissance of friction. Nature Materials 9(1), 8-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2599
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press.
  41. Vygotsky, L. S., Carton, A. S., & Rieber, R. W. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 1 (Including the Volume Thinking and Speech). New York: Plenum Press.
  42. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the "Third Space". Science Education, 88(6), 901-914. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20024
  43. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & education, 46(1), 71-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
  44. Yoo, J., & Kim, J. (2012). Middle School Students' Construction of Physics Inquiry Problems and Variables Isolation and Clarification during Small Group Open-inquiry Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.903
  45. Yu, E.-J., Lee, S.-K., Oh, P. S., Shin, M.-K., & Kim, C.-J. (2008). Case Studies of the Participation Structures in Secondary Science Classrooms: Exploring the Possibility to Develop the "Space for Hybrid Meaning Making". Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(6), 603-617.