Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Characteristics and Changes of Epistemic Thinking in Middle School Students on Class-Argument Activities in an Argument-Based Inquiry(ABI) Science Class

논의기반 탐구 과학수업의 학급 논의 활동에서 나타나는 중학생들의 인식론적 사고의 특징 및 변화

  • Park, Jiyeon (Department of Chemistry Education, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jung, Dojun (Department of Chemistry Education, Pusan National University) ;
  • Nam, Jeonghee (Department of Chemistry Education, Pusan National University)
  • 박지연 (부산대학교 화학교육과) ;
  • 정도준 (부산대학교 화학교육과) ;
  • 남정희 (부산대학교 화학교육과)
  • Received : 2019.09.26
  • Accepted : 2019.12.15
  • Published : 2020.02.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analysis characteristics and changes of epistemic thinking in middle school students on class-argument activities in an argument-based inquiry(ABI) science class. Data was collected from class recording video and activity worksheets of five subjects argument-based inquiry. Results of the analysis of student epistemic cognition characteristics show that experimental data was presented the most as evidence, and depending on the ABI activity, personal experience-based evidence and evidence based on scientific principles were used. As a result of analyzing the changes between claims made before and after class argumentations on five ABI activities in an argument-based inquiry science class, student claim modifications could be classified, according to reasons for the modification, into three types: correcting incorrect claims, clarifying unclear content, and expanding the concept.

이 연구는 논의기반 탐구 과학수업의 학급 논의 활동에서 나타나는 중학생들의 인식론적 사고의 특징을 알아보고자 5개 주제에 대한 논의기반 탐구 과학수업의 수업 동영상 및 활동지를 수집하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 학생들이 학급 논의 과정에서 지식의 원천으로 사용한 증거의 출처로는 실험 자료를 활용한 유형이 가장 많이 나타났으며, 활동 방식에 따라서 개인적인 경험에 기반을 둔 유형과 과학 원리를 증거로 활용하는 유형이 추가로 나타났다. 또한 학급 논의에서 주제에 따른 지식 정당화의 수준 차이는 비슷하게 나타났으나, 주장 정당화의 하위 평가 요소 중 주장 타당성, 증거 타당성 및 논의과정 요소 사용의 수준은 높았지만 반박 타당성의 수준은 낮게 나타났다. 마지막으로 학급 논의 전후의 주장 변화를 분석한 결과, 주장변경 유형은 잘못된 주장의 정정 유형, 불명확한 내용의 명료화 유형, 개념의 확장 유형으로 분류할 수 있었으며, 이 중 잘못된 주장을 정정하는 유형이 가장 높은 비율로 나타났고, 개념의 확장 유형, 불명확한 내용의 명료화 유형의 순서가 차례대로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Yao, J.; Guo, Y. Journal of Reasearch in Science Teaching 2018, 55, 299. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21420
  2. Kwak, Y. S. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2012, 32, 855. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.855
  3. Henderson, J. B.; McNeill, K. L.; Gonzalez-Howard, M.; Close, K.; Evans, M. Journal of Reasearch in Science Teaching 2018, 55, 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21412
  4. Kang, S. M. Characteristics of Argumentation Components in Solving Processes of the Scientific Argument Tasks. Master Thesis, Korea National University of Education, Chung- Buk, Korea, 2014.
  5. Williams, J. M.; Colomb, G. G. The Craft of Argument; Pearson Longman Press: New York, 2007.
  6. Driver, R.; Newton, P.; Osborne, J. Science Education 2000, 84, 287. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  7. Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.; Simon, S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2004, 41, 994. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  8. Asterhan, C. S.; Schwarz, B. B. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 99, 626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
  9. Mercer, N.; Dawes, L.; Wegerif, R.; Sams, C. British Educational Research Journal 2004, 30, 359. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920410001689689
  10. Sampson, V.; Clark, D. B. Science Education 2009, 93, 448. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
  11. Zohar, A.; Nemet, F. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2002, 39, 35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
  12. Nam, J. H.; Koh, M. R.; Bak, D. C.; Lim, J. H.; Lee, D. W.; Choi, A. R. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2011, 31, 1077. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.8.1077
  13. Yore, L.; Bisanz, G. L.; Hand, B. M. International Journal of Science Education 2003, 25, 689. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
  14. Brown, J. S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Educational Researcher 1989, 18, 32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
  15. Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.: Simon, S.; Monk, M. School Science Review 2001, 82, 63.
  16. Cavagnetto, A. R. Review of Educational Research 2010, 80, 336. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
  17. Kuhn, D. Science Education 1993, 77, 319. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  18. Newton, P.; Driver, R.; Osborne, J. International Journal of Science Education 1999, 21, 553. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  19. Sampson, V.; Clark, D. B. Science Education 2008, 92, 447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  20. Kwak, K. H. The Characteristics of the Argumentation in Different Approaches and Contexts. Master Thesis, Pusan National University of Education, Busan, Korea, 2010.
  21. Henderson, J. B.; McNeill, K. L.; Gonzalez-Howard, M.; Close, K.; Evans, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2018, 55, 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21412
  22. Osborne, J. Science Education 1996, 80, 53. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199601)80:1<53::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-1
  23. Hofer, B. K. Epistemic Cognition as a Psychological Construct: Advancements and Challenges. In Handbook of Epistemic Cognition; Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., Braten, I., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2016.
  24. Moshman, D.; Tarricone, P. Logical and Causal Reasoning. In Handbook of Epistemic Cognition; Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., Braten, I., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2016.
  25. Nam, J.; Kwak, K.; Jang, K.; Hand, B. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2008, 28, 922.
  26. Jang, K.; Nam, J.; Choi, A. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2012, 32, 1099. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1099
  27. Keys, C. W.; Hand, B.; Prain, V.; Collins, S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1999, 36, 1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  28. Perry, W. G. Forms of Intellectual Development in the College Years; Holt: New York, 1970.
  29. Belenky, M. F.; Clinchy, B. M.; Goldberger, N. R.; Tarule, J. M. Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind; Basic books: New York, 1986.
  30. King, P. M.; Kitchener, K. S. Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1994.
  31. Hofer, B. K.; Pintrich, P. R. Review of Educational Research 1997, 67, 88. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
  32. Chinn, C. A.; Buckland, L. A.; Samarapungavan, A. L. A. Educational Psychologist 2011, 46, 141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
  33. Sandoval W. A.; Millwood K. A. What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistemology ?. In Argumentation in Science Education; Erduran, S., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, 2007.
  34. Elby, A.; Hammer, D. Science Education 2001, 85, 554. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1023
  35. Lederman, N. G. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29, 331. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  36. Richter, T. Discourse Processes 2015, 52, 337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1025665
  37. Sandoval, W. A.; Millwood, K. A. Cognition and Instruction 2005, 23, 23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  38. Chinn, C. A.; Buckland, L. A. Model-Based Instruction: Fostering Change in Evolutionary Conceptions and in Epistemic Practices. In Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning About Evolution; Rosengren, K. S., Evans, E. M., Brem, S. K., Sinatra, G. M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: UK, 2012.
  39. Barzilai, S.; Eshet-Alkalai, Y. Learning and Instruction 2015, 36, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003
  40. Norris, S. P.; Phillips, L. M. Science Education 2003, 87, 224. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066