Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring Teachers' Responsive Teaching Practice in Argumentation-Based Science Classroom: Focus on Structural and Dialogical Aspects of Argument

논변 활동 중심 과학 수업에서 교사의 반응적 교수 실행 탐색 -논변의 구조적·대화적 측면을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2017.11.24
  • Accepted : 2018.02.13
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore teachers' responsive moves that affect students' argumentation practices, and to propose responsive teaching strategies in argumentation-based science classroom. Two teachers, who have not implemented argumentation in their classes, and 57 students, participated in this study. We recorded and transcribed their classes and interviews for the analysis. According to grounded theory approach, we categorized the teachers' responsive moves as focused on either structural or dialogical aspects of argumentation, and qualitatively analyzed their responsive teaching practices in classes. We discovered that the teachers mostly responded to structural rather than dialogical aspects of argumentation, particularly during the students' small-group discussions. This was mainly due to their instructional goals, which focused on the structural aspect of argumentation, and the limited time available for supporting small-groups. Regarding the structural aspects, those responsive moves that explored the students' thinking or facilitated their reasoning helped them to share their thinking and justify their arguments further with recognition of learning goals in the argumentation activities. Regarding the dialogical aspects, which were seen mostly in whole-class discussions, the moves that underlined similarities and differences between arguments, facilitated the sharing of a small-group's arguments with the entire class, or asked a specific student to evaluate the arguments were notable. These moves supported clarification of various small-groups' arguments, which led to reconstruction of coherent argument through evaluation and rebuttal of these arguments, consequentially facilitating dialogical interactions. Based on these results, we proposed responsive teaching strategies in an argumentation-based science classroom.

본 연구의 목적은 논변 중심 과학 수업에서 교사의 반응적 발화가 학생들의 논변 활동에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 수업 사례를 탐색함으로써 반응적 교수 실행 전략을 제안하는 것이다. 논변 수업의 경험이 없는 중학교 교사 2명과 학생 57명이 연구에 참여하였으며 '자극과 반응' 단원을 중심으로 논변 활동 중심의 과학 수업이 이루어졌다. 모든 수업과 인터뷰는 녹화, 녹음 후 전사하여 주요 분석 자료로 활용하였다. 근거 이론에 따라 두 교사의 반응적 발화를 유형화하여 논변의 구조적 대화적 측면으로 범주화하였으며, 이를 토대로 교사의 반응적 교수 실행이 드러난 수업 사례를 중심으로 질적 분석을 수행하였다. 연구 결과 두 교사는 논변의 대화적 측면 보다는 구조적 측면에 주로 반응하였는데, 특히 전체 논의 보다는 소집단 활동에서 이러한 양상이 두드러졌다. 이는 한 명의 교사가 짧은 시간 내에 여러 소집단에 개입해야 하는 교실의 상황과 논변 활동의 구조적 측면에 주된 목표를 둔 교사의 인식이 주요 요인이었다. 논변의 구조적 측면에 대한 교사의 반응적 발화 중 학생의 사고를 탐색하거나 추론을 촉진하는 발화는 학생들이 자신의 사고를 드러내고 수업의 목표를 인식하며 추론의 책임을 갖고 스스로 사고해 나가도록 지원하였다. 논변의 대화적 측면에 대한 교사의 반응적 발화는 주로 5차시 수업의 전체 논의에서 다수 나타났는데 소집단 간 논변의 차이를 명확히 보여준 수업 과제가 대화적 상호작용 촉진의 기회를 제공하였다. 이때 교사의 논변 간 공통점과 차이점을 부각시키는 발화, 소집단의 논변을 학급 전체에 발표하게 하는 발화, 특정한 학생을 지목하여 논변을 검증하고 평가하게 한 발화들은 소집단 간 논변의 차이를 명확히 드러내게 하여 소집단 간 검증과 반박을 이끌었고, 서로 다른 주장을 담은 논변 간의 연결을 지속적으로 지원하며 대화적 상호작용을 촉진하였다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 논변 활동에서 교사의 반응적 교수 실행을 위한 교수 전략을 제언하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The elementary school journal, 93(4), 373-397. https://doi.org/10.1086/461730
  2. 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
  3. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
  4. Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. Handbook of discourse processes, 165-197.
  5. Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
  6. Corbin, J., Strauss, A., & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
  7. Damsa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. the journal of the learning sciences, 19(2), 143-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
  11. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
  12. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
  13. Gamoran Sherin, M., & Van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155
  14. Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring Responsive Teaching's Effect on Students' Epistemological Framing in Small Group Argumentation, Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 37(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0063
  15. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of science, mathematics and ICT education, 6(1), 51-72.
  16. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument 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
  17. Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting Preservice Science Teachers' Ability to Attend and Respond to Student Thinking by Design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
  18. Kim, S., Lee, S., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring a Teacher's Argumentation-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Identified through Collaborative Reflection and Teaching Practice for Science Argumentation. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 35(6), 1019-1030. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.1019
  19. Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation.
  20. Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
  21. Lee, J. H. (2016) Understanding of small group students' productive practice in scientific argumentation focusing on the change of epistemological resources network. Seoul National University.
  22. Levin, D. M., Grant, T., & Hammer, D. (2012). Attending and responding to student thinking in science. The american biology Teacher, 74(3), 158-162. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.3.6
  23. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
  24. Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. National Science Teachers Association.
  25. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the coconstruction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
  26. McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Katsh‐Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high‐quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21252
  27. McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081
  28. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
  29. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
  30. Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
  31. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
  32. 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
  33. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. The University of Texas at Austin.
  34. Robertson, A. D., Richards, J., Elby, A., & Walkoe, J. (2015). Documenting Variability Within Teacher Attention and Responsiveness to the Substance of Student Thinking. Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics, 227.
  35. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science‐aspractice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112

Cited by

  1. 소집단 과학 논변 활동에서 초임 교사의 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계 탐색 -프레이밍을 중심으로- vol.39, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.6.739
  2. 반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.268