Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Two Elementary School Teachers' Contrasting Approaches During Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations

공감적 발화와 훈육적 발화 -학생들의 과학적 설명 구성에서 두 초등 교사의 대조적인 접근-

  • Received : 2023.03.03
  • Accepted : 2023.04.06
  • Published : 2023.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Teacher interventions in science classrooms are important because they can have a major impact on students' practices. This study qualitatively analyzed what kinds of utterances teachers used to intervene in students' practices of constructing scientific explanations. Two elementary school teachers, L and K, participated in the study, and their lessons in the sixth-grade science unit, 'Structure and Function of Plants' were reorganized for students to engage in the scientific practice of constructing explanations. In each lesson, the two teachers were asked to support students' practices as part of responsive teaching. The results of the study showed that the two teachers mainly utilized empathetic and disciplinary utterances, respectively, which were used to support emotional, processual, and conceptual aspects of students' scientific practices. The empathetic utterances were employed to support students' practices in the order of noticing, actively accepting, and offering alternatives. By contrast, the disciplinary utterances were used in the order of finding deficiencies, evaluating, and urging to improve students' practices. The reasons the teachers made use of empathetic and disciplinary utterances, respectively, were discussed, and implications for science education were suggested.

과학 교실에서 교사의 개입은 학생의 실천에 주요한 영향을 끼칠 수 있다는 점에서 중요하다. 본 연구는 교사가 학생들의 과학적 설명구성 과정에서 어떤 종류의 발화를 하여 학생들의 실천에 개입하는지 질적으로 분석하였다. 두 명의 초등학교 교사인 L과 K가 본 연구에 참여하였으며, 그들의 6학년 과학 '식물의 구조와 기능' 단원이 과학적 설명 구성 수업으로 재구성되었다. 두 교사에게 매 수업에서 반응적 교수의 일환으로 학생의 과학적 실천을 도울 수 있도록 요청하였다. 연구 결과, 두 교사는 각각 주로 공감적 발화 또는 훈육적 발화를 사용하였으며, 이들은 학생들의 과학적 실천의 정서적, 과정적, 개념적 측면을 돕기 위해 사용된 것을 알 수 있었다. 이 중 공감적 발화는 알아채기, 적극적 수용, 대안 제시의 순서로 진행되어 학생들의 실천을 조력하였고, 이와는 대조적으로 훈육적 발화는 학생들의 실천을 개선하기 위한 목적에서 부족함 찾기, 평가하기, 촉구하기의 순서로 이루어졌다. 두 교사가 각각 공감적 발화와 훈육적 발화를 사용하는 까닭을 논의하였으며, 과학 교육에의 시사점을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arghode, V., Yalvac, B., Liew, J. (2013). Teacher empathy and science education: A collective case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 9(2), 89-99.
  2. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  4. Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
  5. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. CA, US: Sage publications.
  6. Davidson S. G., Jaber, L. Z., & Southerland, S. A. (2020). Emotions in the doing of science: Exploring epistemic affect in elementary teachers' science research experiences. Science Education, 104(6), 1008-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21596
  7. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
  8. Han, M. H. (2020). Epistemic empathy of a teacher and emotional regulation of elementary students during human respiratory system modeling. Biology Education, 48(3), 368-380. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2020.48.3.368
  9. Han, M. H., & Oh, P. S. (2022). A case study of an elementary science teacher's emotional responsive teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 42(2), 227-238.
  10. Jaber, L. Z. (2015). Attending to students' epistemic affect. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 162-188). New York, NY: Routledge.
  11. Jaber, L. Z. (2021). "He got a glimpse of the joys of understanding" -The role of epistemic empathy in teacher learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(3), 433-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936534
  12. Jaber, L. Z., Dini, V., & Hammer, D. (2022). "Well that's how the kids feel!" -Epistemic empathy as a driver of responsive teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(2), 223-251. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21726
  13. Jaber, L., Z., Dini, V., Hammer, D., & Danahy, E. (2018a). Targeting disciplinary practices in an online learning environment. Science Education, 102(4), 668-692.
  14. Jaber, L. Z., Southerland, S., & Dake, F. (2018b). Cultivating epistemic empathy in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 13-23.
  15. Kang, H. (2022). Teacher responsiveness that promotes equity in secondary science classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 40(2), 206-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.1972423
  16. Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teacher's ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895.
  17. Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Elementary students' perceptions of role and epistemic authority in the activity about 'Making a pet poster'. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 587-597.
  18. Ke, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2021). Supporting students' meaningful engagement in scientific modeling through epistemological messages: A case study of contrasting teaching approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 335-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21662
  19. Kim, K. W., Yang, H. S., & Kang, S. J. (2019). The effect on manifesting group creativity by empathy level of students in the elementary science class. The Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 38(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2019.38.1.1
  20. King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., Henderson, S., & Borand, B. (2017). Temporality of emotion: Antecedent and successive variants of frustration when learning chemistry. Science Education, 101(4), 639-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21277
  21. Song, J., Kang, S.-J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., Do, J.-H., Min, B., Park, S. C., Bae, S., Son, Y.-A, Son, J. W., Oh, P. S., Lee, J.-K., Ihm, H., Jeong, D. H., Joung, Y. J., Joung, J. (2018). A development of Korean science education standards (KSES) for the next generation. Seoul: KOFAC.
  22. Kwon, J., & Kim, H.-B. (2016). Exploring small group argumentation shown in designing an experiment: Focusing on students' epistemic goals and epistemic considerations for activities. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  23. Lee, D., Yoon, J., & Kang, S. (2015). The suggestion of design thinking process and its feasibility study for fostering group creativity of elementary-secondary school students in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0443
  24. Lee, E.-J., & Son, Y.-A. (2022). The effects of class applying the empathy lens, and an suggestion of a science learning model using the empathy lens. Biology Education, 50(4), 598-617. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2022.50.4.598
  25. Lee, S., Yoon, J., & Kang, S. (2018). Exploring the possibility of design thinking program as a group creativity development strategy for elementary school students. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(11), 525-544.
  26. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  27. Levrini, O., Levin, M., Fantini, P., & Tasquier, G. (2019). Orchestration of classroom discussions that foster appropriation. Science Education, 103(1), 206-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21475
  28. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  29. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  30. Mikkonen, K., Kyngas, H., & Kaariainen, M. (2015). Nursing students' experiences of the empathy of their teachers: A qualitative study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(3), 669-682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9554-0
  31. Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 Science Curriculum (Notification No.2015-74 of the Ministry of Education). Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  32. Ministry of Education (2019). 5th Grade Elementary Science Guidebook. Seoul: Visang Press.
  33. Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465
  34. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  35. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  36. Oh, P. S. (2011). "Unfillable cups": Meaning of science classes to elementary school teachers. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 31(2), 271-294.
  37. Oh, P. S., & Han, M. (2021). A review of the history of and recent trends on emotion research in science education. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 41(2), 103-114.
  38. Oxley, J. (2011). The moral dimensions of empathy: Limits and applications in ethical theory and practice. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  39. Park, C. (2015). Study of sympathy in education of literature. Doctoral dissertation, Korea University, Seoul.
  40. Park, J., Tang, K.-S., & Chang, J. (2021). Plan-Draw-Evaluate (PDE) pattern in students' collaborative drawing: Interracial between visual and verbal modes of representation. Science Education, 105(5), 1013-1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21668
  41. Park, J. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring teacher's responsive teaching practice in argumentation-based science classroom: Focus on structural and dialogical aspects of argument. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 69-85.
  42. Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY: Routledge.
  43. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571-1600.
  44. Stake, R. E. (2006).Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
  45. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_2
  46. utkur, N. (2019). Empathy in primary school life sciences course: The roles assumed by pre-service teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(4), 43-54.
  47. Yang, H., & Kang, S.-J. (2019). Scientific empathy discovered in scientists' problem-solving process. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(2), 249-261.
  48. Yang, H., Yoon, J., Park, J., & Kang S.-J. (2020). Analysis of empathy factors in science class: Focusing on comparison with general empathy factors. School Science Education, 14(2), 245-258.
  49. Zeyer, A., & Dillon, J. (2019). The role of empathy for learning in complex science, environment, health contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 297-315.