Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring the Role of Collaborative Reflection in Small Group Argumentation: Focus on Students' Epistemic Considerations and Practices

소집단 논변 활동에서 협력적 성찰의 역할 탐색 -학생들의 인식적 고려와 실행을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2018.11.26
  • Accepted : 2019.01.30
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to explore students' epistemic practices and considerations, which are explained as underlying epistemic thoughts that guide their epistemic practices, during argumentation in science classrooms. We also investigated how collaborative reflection facilitated the development of such epistemic considerations. Two seventh-grade classes participated in this study by engaging in argumentation activities and collaborative reflection after classes. A group with students' change in epistemic aspects and the influence of collaborative reflection clearly revealed from their practices was chosen as a focus group. We recorded their class discussions and collaborative reflections with the researchers. Transcriptions of the recordings and checklists we collected during the collaborative reflections were used for analysis. Results showed evident changes in the students' epistemic considerations and practices and four factors facilitating such developments were identified. First, the researcher facilitating the students to recognize each other as collaborators during collaborative reflection led development of epistemic considerations on "audience using the knowledge products." Second, the collaborative reflection facilitated construction of context for peer interactions where the students encouraged each other to participate in the discussion, resulting in the development of other students' epistemic considerations on "justifications in knowledge products." Third, the items provided on the checklists explicitly delineated expectations on their practices in argumentation, also facilitating development of epistemic considerations. Lastly, the students' imitation of the researcher's pattern of discourse facilitated construction of causal explanation and development of epistemic considerations on "nature of the knowledge products." This study will contribute to the construction of strategies that develop students' epistemic considerations and productive epistemic practices in argumentation.

본 연구는 소집단 논변활동에서 나타난 학생들의 인식적 실행을 토대로 하여 학생들이 지닌 인식적 고려를 파악하고, 수업 실행 중에 나타난 학생들의 인식적 고려 수준의 변화에 협력적 성찰이 어떻게 영향을 미쳤는지를 탐색하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 중학교 1학년을 대상으로 소집단 논변 활동과 수업 후 소집단 구성원과의 협력적 성찰을 진행하였다. 협력적 성찰을 진행한 소집단 중에 수업 실행으로 부터 인식적 측면의 변화가 명확히 드러나며, 이 변화에 협력적 성찰이 기여한 바가 분명하게 드러난 소집단을 초점집단으로 선정하였다. 논변 활동에서의 소집단 논의 및 협력적 성찰을 녹화, 녹음하였고, 그 전사본과 협력적 성찰시 활용된 체크리스트를 바탕으로 학생들의 인식적 고려를 지식 산물의 본성, 지식 산물 구성의 정당화, 청중에 대한 인식 측면에서 분석하였다. 그리고 인식적 고려와 실행의 변화에 있어 협력적 성찰이 어떻게 역할을 하였는지 분석하였다. 연구결과, 소집단 학생들이 보인 인식적 고려 수준은 제각각 차이가 있었으며, 협력적 성찰이 기여한 변화는 5차시 수업 이후에 나타났다. 학생의 인식적 고려 수준의 변화를 촉진하는 요인은 크게 네 가지로 구분되었다. 첫째, 협력적 성찰에서 연구자가 수업 실행에 대한 성찰을 유도하는 과정에서 구성원을 협력자로 인식하는 기회를 제공했고, 이는 '청중에 대한 인식' 측면에서 인식적 고려 수준의 발달을 지원하였다. 둘째, 협력적 성찰이 기존과는 다른 방식의 동료와의 상호작용이 나타나게 하는 맥락 조성에 기여하였다. 구성원을 협력자로 인식하고 논변을 발전시키는 과정에 참여하도록 유도하는 상호작용이 '정당화' 측면에서 다른 구성원의 인식적 고려 수준 발달을 지원한 것으로 확인되었다. 셋째, 협력적 성찰에서 제공된 체크리스트가 활동에서 기대하는 바를 명시화함으로써 생산적인 인식적 실행을 촉구하였고, 이 또한 학생의 인식적 고려 수준의 발달을 지원하였다. 마지막으로 협력적 성찰에서 연구자가 사용한 발화 패턴을 모방한 학생의 인식적 실행은 학생이 인과적 설명 구성을 할 수 있게 촉진하였고, 이는 '본성' 측면에서 인식적 고려 수준의 발달을 지원하였다. 본 연구는 학생의 인식적 고려 수준을 발달시킬 수 있는 지원 방안을 마련하고, 발달된 인식적 고려를 바탕으로 생산적인 인식적 실행을 촉진하는 데에 기여할 것이다.

Keywords

Table 1. Contents of the implemented argumentation activities in the lessons and collaborative reflections

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_1_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Students’ epistemic considerations in argumentation activities

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_1_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Levels of epistemic considerations inferred from students’ practices in argumentation activities

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_1_t0003.png 이미지

Table 1. (Continued)

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_1_t0004.png 이미지

References

  1. Adams, J., Avraamidou, L., Bayram-Jacobs, D., Boujaoude, S., Bryan, L., Christodoulou, A., ... Zembal-Saul, C. (2018). The Role of Science Educationina Changing World. Lorentz Center, Netherlands.
  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. 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 student. Journal of Research in Science Teacing, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
  5. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations(pp. 188-228). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Engelmann, T., Kozlov, M. D., Kolodziej, R., & Clariana, R. B. (2014). Fostering group norm development and orientation while creating awareness contents for improving net-based collaborative problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 298-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.052
  10. Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001
  11. Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus Dispute: The Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417-446. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i4.2907
  12. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, and P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
  14. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (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
  15. Kelly, G. J. (2005). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. proceedings of the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, February. Retrieved December 2006, from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/rgrandy/NSFConSched.html.
  16. Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M.. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre(Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.117-136). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
  17. 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
  18. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  19. Kwon, J. S., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring Small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment: Focusing on Students’ Epistemic Goal and Epistemic Considerations for Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  20. Lee, C. E. & Kim, H. B. (2016). Understanding the Role of Wonderment Questions Relatedto Activation of Conceptual Resources in Scientific Model Construction: Focusing on Students’ Epistemological Framing and Positional Framing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 471-483. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0471
  21. Lee, S. Y., Park, S. H., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring Secondary Students’ Progression in Group Norms and Argumentation Competency through Collaborative Reflection about Small Group Argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(6), 895-910. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.6.0895
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9031-z
  23. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  24. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  25. Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00062-0
  26. 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
  27. Park, C. M., & Martin, S. (2018). Improving Science Teaching and Learning for New Teachers and Diverse Learners Using Participatory Action Research and Cogenerative Dialogue. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(2), 97-112. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.2.97
  28. Park, S. H., Lee, S. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2014). Exploring Middle School Students’ Metacognitive Development via Collaborative Reflection of Small-Group Argumentation in Science Classroom. The Korean Society of Biology Education, 42(1), 1-15.
  29. Pattison,S.A.,Gontan,I.,Ramos‐Montañez, S., & Moreno, L. (2018). Identity negotiation within peer groups during an informal engineering education program: The central role of leadership‐oriented youth. Science Education. 102(5), 978-1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21459
  30. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al.(2004). A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. The Journal of The Learning Science, 13(3), 337-386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
  31. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2001). The Implications of Coteaching / Cogenerative Dialogue for Teacher Evaluation: Learning from Multiple Perspectives of Everyday Practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011100117706
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-88). Dordrecht; London: Springer.
  35. Sandoval. W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
  36. Shanahan, M. -C. (2009). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 43-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681847
  37. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  38. Tobin, K. (2014). Using Collaborative Inquiry to Better Understand Teaching and Learning. In J. L. Bencze & S. Alsop(Eds.), Activist Science and Technology Education (Vol. 9, pp. 127-147). Dordrecht: Springer.
  39. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: Perspectives from the field. Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  40. Yun, H. J., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring Science High School Student’ Epistemic Goal, Epistemic Considerations and Complexity of Reasoning in Open Inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.4.541
  41. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025
  42. 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

Cited by

  1. 비생산적 논변에서 생산적 논변으로의 실행 변화 탐색 -인식론적 자원과 맥락을 중심으로- vol.41, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.3.193