Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

A Theoretical Investigation on Agency to Facilitate the Understanding of Student-Centered Learning Communities in Science Classrooms

학생 중심의 과학 학습 공동체 이해를 위한 행위주체성에 대한 이론적 고찰

  • Received : 2018.12.28
  • Accepted : 2019.01.30
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to explore which aspects of student agency have previously been studied and the ways agent practices have been investigated in learning communities in research on science education. Results reveal five aspects of agency related to students' actions in a learning community: epistemic agency, transformative agency, educated action in science, disciplinary agency, and material agency. We delineated how agency is captured in epistemic practices, as described in the literature on each of the aforementioned aspects. We also probed into the three approaches by which previous research has examined the practices of students as agents that construct learning communities. These approaches are (a) the investigation of students' actions as representative of the agency of an entire learning community, (b) the exploration of the effects of focused student action on the structure of activity, and (c) the investigation of interactions between students as agents. We discussed the implications of previous research on the basis of each approach to understanding the diverse features of student-centered learning communities. The present work contributes to the exploration and support of students' practices as agents in the learning communities in science classrooms.

본 연구에서는 과학 교육 문헌에서 학생들의 실행에서 행위주체성의 어떠한 측면에 주목해왔으며 이를 학습 공동체를 구성하는 행위주체의 행위로서 어떻게 탐색해왔는지 검토하였다. 그 결과, 행위주체성이 크게 다섯 가지 측면에서 논의되었다는 점을 보였다. 행위주체로서 학생들의 실행은 인식적, 변화적, 실천적 측면에서 논의되었고, 행위주체인 학생들이 상호작용하는 학문 영역과 물질의 행위주체성 또한 논의되었음을 살펴보았다. 연구 결과에서 각 측면에 주목할 때 어떠한 구조적 특성을 지닌 활동 속에서 행위주체성을 어떻게 포착하고 논의하였는지 설명하였다. 이러한 논의를 바탕으로, 공동체를 구성하는 행위주체로서의 학생들의 실행을 각 문헌에서 구체적으로 어떻게 분석했는지 검토하였다. 그 결과를 학습 공동체 전반의 행위주체성에 주목한 경우, 초점을 맞춘 한 학생이 공동체의 활동 구조에 미치는 영향에 주목한 경우, 여러 학생들 사이의 상호작용에 주목한 경우로 구분하여 살펴보았다. 각 경우에 학습과 행위주체성을 해석한 관점과 그러한 연구가 지니는 시사점을 연구 결과에서 논의하였다. 본 연구는 학생들이 학습 공동체의 주체로서 역할을 하는 모습을 탐색하고 이를 지원하려는 노력에 기여할 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Archer, M. S. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 455-483. https://doi.org/10.2307/589357
  2. Arnold, J., & Clarke, D. J. (2014). What is 'agency'? Perspectives in Science Education Research, International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735-754.
  3. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
  4. Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530-544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204
  5. Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55(5-6), 302-318. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345322
  6. Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin'! Agency, identity, and science learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530044
  7. Barton, A. C., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 68-103. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308641
  8. Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2009). Critical physics agency: Further unraveling the intersections of subject matter knowledge, learning, and taking action. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 387-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9155-4
  9. Basu, S. J., Barton, A. C., Clairmont, N., & Locke, D. (2009). Developing a framework for critical science agency through case study in a conceptual physics context. Cultural studies of science education, 4(2), 345-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9135-8
  10. Basu, S. J. (2008). How students design and enact physics lessons: Five immigrant Caribbean youth and the cultivation of student voice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 881-899. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20257
  11. Birmingham, D., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21127
  12. Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171-200). Westport, CT: Ablex.
  13. Brickhouse, N.W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005)37:5<441::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-3
  14. Buxton, C. A. (2005). Creating a culture of academic success in an urban science and math magnet high school. Science Education, 89, 392-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20057
  15. Buxton, C., Allexsaht-Snider, M., Kayumova, S., Aghasaleh, R., Choi, Y., & Cohen, A. (2015). Teacher agency and professional learning: Rethinking fidelity of implementation as multiplicities of enactment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21223
  16. Carlone, H. B., Johnson, A., & Scott, C. M. (2015). Agency amidst formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 474-488. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21224
  17. Elmesky, R. (2005). "I am science and the world is mine": Embodied practices as resources for empowerment. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18052.x
  18. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
  19. Engestrom, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Engestrom, Y. (2005). Knotworking to create collaborative intentionality capital in fluid organizational fields. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, & F. A. Kennedy (Eds.), Collaborative capital: Creating intangible value (pp. 307-336). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  21. Engestrom, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410521477
  22. Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
  23. Furman, M., & Barton, A. C. (2006). Capturing urban student voices in the creation of a science mini-documentary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 667-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20164
  24. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  25. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  26. Goulart, M. I., & Roth, W. -M. (2010). Engaging young children in collective curriculum design. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 553-562.
  27. Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5
  28. Kane, J. M. (2015). The structure-agency dialectic in contested science spaces: "Do earthworms eat apples? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21206
  29. Ha, H., & Kim, H. -B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0063
  30. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E.F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfre of learning: Research and perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  31. Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.2307/202035
  32. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  33. Kim, A. K. (2016). The effects of smartphone addiction on self-directed learning ability of pre-service early childhood teachers: The mediating effect of achievement motivation. The Journal of Humanities Studies, 103(0), 79-106.
  34. Kim, H. W., Yoon, J. H., & Kang, S. J. (2016). A study on the improvements of elementary science digital textbook for self-directed learning. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(12), 1065-1100. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2016.16.12.1065
  35. Kwon, O. (2015). A study on the perception of elementary school teachers on experimental errors happening in science classes. The Journal of Education Studies, 52(1), 45-60.
  36. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  38. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (trans. C Porter). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  40. Lee, Y. -J., & Roth, W. -M. (2004). Making a scientist: Discursive ''doing'' of identity and selfpresentation during research interviews [37 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 5(1). Available at URL: http://http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/655/1418 (Accessed December 11, 2018).
  41. Lee, C., & Kim, H. -B. (2016). Understanding the role of wonderment questions related to 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
  42. Lee, S., Han, J., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2015). Characteristics of student inquiry found in project-based science practices: Focusing on theory-evidencemethod coordinations and skills in using tools. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 599-608. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0599
  43. Lee, M., & Kim, H. -B. (2016). Science high school students’ shift in scientific practice and perception through the R&E participation: On the perspective of legitimate peripheral participation in the community of practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 371-387. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0371
  44. Manz, E. (2015). Resistance and the development of scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 33(2), 89-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.1000490
  45. Martin, J. (2016). The grammar of agency: Studying possibilities for student agency in science classroom discourse. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.003
  46. Martin, J., & Carter, L. (2015). Preservice teacher agency concerning education for sustainability (EfS): A discursive psychological approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 560-573. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21217
  47. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction 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
  48. Matusov, E., von Duyke, K., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Mapping concepts of agency in educational Contexts. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50, 420-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9336-0
  49. Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459
  50. Ministry of Education (2015). Science Curriculum. MOE Notification No. 2015-74 [Supplement 9]. Seoul, Ministry of Education.
  51. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  52. Nielson, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x
  53. OECD (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD.
  54. Oh, P. S. (2015). A theoretical review and trial application of the 'resources-based view' (RBV) as an alternative cognitive theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 971-984. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.0971
  55. Olitsky, S. (2006). Structure, agency, and the development of students’ identities as learners. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 745-766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9033-x
  56. Park, H., Min, B., & Jeong, D. H. (2008). Laboratory abilities to carry-out experimentations of matter in the middle school science texts. Journal of Korean Science Education, 28(8), 870-879.
  57. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  58. Rose, S. L., & Barton, A. C. (2012). Should great lakes city build a new power plant? How youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 541-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21017
  59. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
  60. Roth, W.-M. (2007). Theorizing passivity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9045-6
  61. Roth, W. M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86(3), 368-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10008
  62. Roth, W. M. (1999). Discourse and agency in school science laboratories. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 27-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545068
  63. Ryder, J., Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2018). Expressions of agency within complex policy structures: Science teachers’ experiences of education policy reforms in Sweden. International Journal of Science Education, 40(5), 538-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1435921
  64. Schlosser, M. (2015, August 10). Agency. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/
  65. Shanahan, M. -C. (2009). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 2009, 45(1), 43-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681847
  66. Shanahan, M. C., & Nieswandt, M. (2011). Science student role: Evidence of social structural norms specific to school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 367-395. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20406
  67. Sharma, A. (2007). Making (electrical) connections: Exploring student agency in a school in India. Science Education, 92(2), 297-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20246
  68. Sewell, W. H. Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967
  69. Siry C., & Lang, E. D. (2010). Creating participatory discourse for teaching and research in early childhood science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9162-7
  70. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
  71. Stroupe, D., Caballero, M. D., & White, P. (2018). Fostering students’ epistemic agency through the co-configuration of moth research. Science Education, 102, 1176-1200. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21469
  72. Tan, E., & Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 43-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9076-7
  73. Tan, E., & Barton, A. (2007). From peripheral to central, the story of Melanie’s metamorphosis in an urban middle school science class. Science Education, 92, 567-590. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20253
  74. Turner, E., & Font, B. (2003). Fostering critical mathematical agency: Urban middle school students engage in mathematics to understand, critique and act upon their world. Paper presented at the American Education Studies Association Conference, Mexico City.
  75. Varelas, M., Settlage, J., & Mensah, F. M. (2015a). Explorations of the structure-agency dialectic as a tool for framing equity in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 439-447. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21230
  76. Varelas, M., Tucker-Raymond, E., & Richards, K. (2015b). A structure-agency perspective on young children’s engagement in school science: Carlos’s performance and narrative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 516-529. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21211
  77. Yun, H., & Kim, H. -B. (2018). Exploring science high school students’ epistemic goals, 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
  78. Zimmerman, H. T., & Weible, J. L. (2018). Epistemic agency in an environmental sciences watershed investigation fostered by digital photography. International Journal of Science Education, 40(8), 894-918. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1455115

Cited by

  1. '설다'와 '익다'의 너나들이 -이종네트워크로서 과학학습- vol.40, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.6.631