Table 1. Contents of the implemented argumentation activities in the lessons and collaborative reflections
Table 2. Students’ epistemic considerations in argumentation activities
Table 3. Levels of epistemic considerations inferred from students’ practices in argumentation activities
Table 1. (Continued)
참고문헌
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: Perspectives from the field. Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
- 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
- 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
- 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
피인용 문헌
- 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