References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. Handbook of discourse processes, 165-197.
- 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
- Corbin, J., Strauss, A., & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
- 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
- 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. (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
- Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
- 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
- Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation.
- Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. National Science Teachers Association.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
- 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
- Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. The University of Texas at Austin.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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