Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Epistemic Considerations and Scientific Argumentation Level in Argumentation to Conceptualize the Concept of Natural Selection of Science-Gifted Elementary Students

초등 과학 영재 학생들의 자연선택 개념 이해를 위한 논변 활동에서 나타난 인식적 이해와 논변활동 수준 분석

  • Received : 2017.07.20
  • Accepted : 2017.08.17
  • Published : 2017.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzes the epistemic considerations and the argumentation level revealed in the discourse of the key concept of natural selection for science-gifted elementary students. The paper analyzes and discusses the results of a three-student focus group, drawn from a cohort of twenty gifted sixth-grade elementary students. Nature, generality, justification, and audience were used to analyze epistemic consideration. Learning progression in scientific argumentation including argument construction and critique was used to analyze students' scientific argumentation level. The findings are as follows: First, Epistemic considerations in discourse varied between key concepts of natural selection discussed. The nature aspect of epistemic considerations is highly expressed in the discourse for all natural selection key concepts. But the level of generality, justification and audience was high or low, and the level was not revealed in the discourse. In the heredity of variation, which is highly expressed in terms of generality of knowledge, the linkage with various phenomena against the acquired character generated a variety of ideas. These ideas were used to facilitate engagement in argumentation, so that all three students showed the level of argumentation of suggestions of counter-critique. Second, students tried to explain the process of speciation by using concepts that were high in practical epistemic considerations level when explaining the concept of speciation, which is the final natural selection key concept. Conversely, the concept of low level of epistemic considerations was not included as an explanation factor. The results of this study suggest that students need to analyze specific factors to understand why epistemological decisions are made by students and how epistemological resources are used according to context through various epistemological resources. Analysis of various factors influencing epistemological decisions can be a mediator of the instructor who can improve the quality and level of the argumentation.

이 연구에서는 초등 과학 영재 학생들을 대상으로 자연선택 핵심개념 논변 활동 담화에서 드러난 인식적 이해와 논변활동 수준을 분석하였다. 논변활동에 참여한 학생들은 광역시 소재 영재교육원 6학년 학생 20명이었는데, 그 중 적극적으로 논변활동에 참여한 소집단 중 담화에서 인식적 이해가 드러나며, 개념에 따라 소집단 구성원의 인식적 이해 수준이 서로 달랐던 세 명으로 구성된 소집단을 목적표집하여 그들의 담화를 분석하였다. 담화에서 드러난 인식적 이해의 요소는 본성, 일반성, 정당화, 청중의 범주로 나누어 분석하였으며 논변활동 수준은 논변의 구성과 비평을 중심으로 내재적 인지 부하에 따라 만들어진 논변활동 학습발달과정을 사용하였다. 연구 결과, 학생들의 논변활동에서 드러난 인식적 이해는 자연선택 하위 개념별로 다르게 나타났다. 자연 선택 하위 개념 모두 실천적 인식적 이해의 본성 측면에서는 모두 높게 나타났으나 일반성, 정당화, 청중 범주에서는 높거나 낮았으며, 그 수준이 담화에서 드러나지 않는 경우도 있었다. 지식의 일반성 측면에서 높게 드러난 변이의 유전개념에서 획득형질의 유전에 반대하는 다양한 현상과의 연결은 다양한 아이디어를 생성하여 논변활동 참여를 촉진하는 요소로 활용되어 세 학생 모두 논변활동 수준은 비판 제시 수준으로 나타났다. 하지만, 정당화와 청중 범주에서 실천적 인식적 이해 수준이 낮게 드러난 개념들의 학생의 논변 활동 수준은 그 보다 낮았다. 학생들이 최종 자연선택 핵심 개념인 종분화 개념 논변 시 모두 인식적 이해 수준이 높았던 개념들을 이용하여 종분화 과정을 설명하려 하였으며, 반대로 인식적 이해 수준이 낮았던 개념은 설명 요소로 포함시키지 않았다. 이 연구결과 학생들은 다양한 인식론적 자원을 통해 맥락에 따라 활용되는 인식론적 자원은 다르며 학생들이 왜, 어떻게 인식론적 결정을 하는지에 대한 구체적인 요인들을 분석할 필요성을 제안한다. 인식론적 결정에 영향을 미치는 다양한 요인 분석은 논변 활동의 질과 수준을 높일 수 있는 교수자의 중재 요소가 될 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10053
  2. Berland, L., & Crucet, K. (2016). Epistemological Trade-Offs: Accounting for Context When Evaluating Epistemological Sophistication of Student Engagement in Scientific Practices. Science Education, 100(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21196
  3. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
  4. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
  5. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270503
  6. Board on Science Education. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
  7. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
  8. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  9. Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform.
  10. 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
  11. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  12. 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
  13. Furtak (2012). Linking Progression for Natural Selection to Teachers' Enactment of Formative Assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1181-1220.
  14. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  15. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3
  16. Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education,
  17. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of educational research, 67(1), 88-140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
  18. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2006). Young children's conception of the biological world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 177-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00431.x
  19. 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
  20. Kwon, J., & Kim, H. (2016). Exploring small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment : Focusing on Students' Epistemic Goals and Epistemic Consideration for Activities. Journal of Korean Association for science education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  21. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D.,&Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6
  22. Maeng, S., Park, Y., & Kim, C. (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
  23. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(02), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
  25. Ohlsson, S. & Bee, N. V. (1992) The effect of expository text on children's explanations of biological evolution. OERI Report. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
  26. Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  27. Park, C., & Cha, H. (2016). Analyzing the effectiveness of argumentation program to conceptualize natural selection concept for the elementary science gifted students. Journal of Korean Association for science education, 36(4), 591-606. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0591
  28. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  29. Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2010). Generate an argument: an instructional Model. Science Teacher, 77(5), 32-37.
  30. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
  31. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

  1. 불확실함에서 벗어나기까지: "왜 강낭콩이 싹트지 않았을까?" 논변 활동에서 초등학생들의 정서-인지적 반박 vol.40, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.1.1