Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring Epistemic Considerations in Small Group Science Argumentation of Elementary Students

초등학생들의 소집단 과학 논의 활동에 나타나는 인식적 고려사항 탐색

  • Received : 2018.11.21
  • Accepted : 2019.02.04
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to show that epistemic considerations can be used meaningfully in the argumentation of elementary students, and to provide data on students' epistemic considerations that will be the basis for designing and evaluating scientific argumentation. The epistemic considerations in students' small group argumentations were explored based on Epistemic Considerations in Students' Epistemologies in Practice: EIP' suggested by Berland et al. (2016). The major results of this study are as follows: First, epistemic considerations in elementary school students' small group argumentation appeared in all four aspects: Nature, generality, justification and audience. The epistemic considerations varied according to context in each discussion situation. Second, epistemic considerations did not exist independently. They influenced each other and helped to reveal new types of considerations. The results of this study confirmed that argumentation can be used in elementary school science class. Understanding how students are involved in argumentation and how these epistemic considerations can affect students' argumentation can be helpful to teachers who design and evaluate small group argumentation. Students' achievement level affected epistemic considerations but learning approach types did not affect on. In addition, epistemic considerations may have a positive or negative effect on each other depending on the discussion situation in the process of interaction. So consideration of normative argumentation rules and teaching strategies should be considered in order for epistemic considerations to positively affect each other.

이 연구에서는 초등학생들의 소집단 과학 논의 활동에서 나타나는 인식적 고려사항들을 동정하고 이러한 인식적 고려사항들이 논의 상황 속에서 어떻게 서로 관련되는지 탐색하였다. 학생들의 소집단 논의 활동에서 나타난 인식적 고려사항들은 Berland et al.(2016)이 제시한 틀을 사용하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 초등학생들의 소집단 논의 활동에서 인식적 고려사항은 본성, 일반성, 정당화, 청중의 네 가지 측면에서 소집단 별, 차시 별로 다양하게 나타났다. 둘째, 소집단 별 논의 활동에서 나타난 인식적 고려사항들은 서로 상호 작용하며 복합적으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구 결과는 소집단 논의 수업을 설계하고 평가하는 교사들에게 학생들이 논의 활동에 참여할 때 어떠한 생각을 가지고 참여하고 있으며 이러한 인식적 고려사항들이 학생들의 논의 활동에 어떤 영향을 줄 수 있는지에 대한 이해를 제공할 수 있다. 학생들의 학습접근방식보다는 성적 수준이 학생들이 사용하는 인식적 고려사항에 더 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 인식적 고려사항들은 상호 작용하는 과정에서 논의 상황에 따라 서로 관련이 되므로 인식적 고려사항들이 서로에게 긍정적으로 관련되어 과학 논의 활동이 과학적이고 논리적으로 전개될 수 있도록 소집단내 규범 형성 및 교수 전략을 고려하여야 한다.

Keywords

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 3rd class of group 1 argumentation

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 4th class of group 1 argumentation

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 3rd class of group 2 argumentation

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 4. Interaction of epistemic considerations in 4th class of group 2 argumentation

Table 1. Description of participants in the focus group

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Topic and argumentation contents for each class

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Epistemic considerations in students’ Epistemologies in Practice(Berland et al., 2015)

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Epistemic considerations by class period of Group 1

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Epistemic consideration by class period of Group 2

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Students’ epistemic considerations by group and class period

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Epistemic consideration by student background variables

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0007.png 이미지

Table 4. (Continued)

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0008.png 이미지

Table 5. (Continued)

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_59_t0009.png 이미지

References

  1. Aufschnaite C., Erduran S., Osborne J., & Simon S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
  2. 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
  3. Cavallo, A.M.L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability and students’ understanding and problem solving of genetics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6), 625-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<625::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-Q
  4. Choi J., Lee S., & Kim, H. (2014). Social interaction according to students' approaches to learning science and their levels of scientific knowledge during small-group argumentation, Biology Education, 42(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.4.371
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W., Editors (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  8. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  9. Kang, N., & Lee E. (2013). Argument and argumentation: A review of literature for clarification of translated words, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(6), 1119-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119
  10. Kwon, J., & Kim, H. (2016). Exploring small group argumentation shown in designing an experiment: Focusing on students' epistemic goals 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
  11. 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
  12. Park, J., & Kim, H.(2012). Theoretical considerations on analytical framework design for the interactions between participants in group argumentation on socio-scientific issues, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 604-624. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.604
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21107
  16. Sandoval, W. A., & Cam, A. (2011). Elementary children’s judgements of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20426

Cited by

  1. 논의기반 탐구활동이 초등학생의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 주장과 증거에 미치는 영향 vol.64, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.6.389