Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.2.173

Practical Epistemology Analysis on Epistemic Process in Science Learning  

Maeng, Seungho (Seoul National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education / v.37, no.2, 2018 , pp. 173-187 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to clarify the specific terms of epistemic and epistemological by reviewing the literature on epistemological understanding of science learning, examine the necessity of epistemic discourse analysis based on the view of social epistemology, and provide an exemplar of practical epistemology analysis for elementary children's science learning. The review was conducted in terms of meaning and terminology about epistemic or epistemological approach to science learning, epistemology of/for science, and methodologies for epistemic discourse analysis. As an alternative way of epistemic discourse analysis in science classroom I employed practical epistemology analysis (by Wickman), evidence-explanation continuum (by Duschl), and DREEC diagram (by Maeng et al.). The methods were administered to an elementary science class for the third grade where children observed sedimentary rocks. Through the outcomes of analysis I sought to understand the processes how children collected data by observation, identified evidence, and constructed explanations about rocks. During the process of practical epistemology analysis the cases of four categories, such as encounter, stand-fast, gap, and relation, were identified. The sequence of encounter, stand fast, gap, and relation showed how children observed sedimentary rocks and how they came to learn the difference among the rocks. The epistemic features of children's observation discourse, although different from scientists' discourses during their own practices, showed data-only conversation, evidence-driven conversation, or explanation inducing conversation. Thus I argue even elementary children are able to construct their own knowledge and their epistemic practices are productive.
Keywords
practical epistemology analysis; epistemic discourse; epistemology for science learning;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 7  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Kwon, J-S. & 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 the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61.   DOI
2 Lee, C-E. & 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.   DOI
3 Ha, H. & Kim, H-B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching’ effect on students’ epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75.   DOI
4 Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5 Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53-90.   DOI
6 Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E. & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
7 Hamza, K. M. & Wickman, P-O. (2013). Supporting students’ progression in science: Continuity between the particular, the contingent, and the general. Science Education, 97, 113-138.   DOI
8 Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemological research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353-383.   DOI
9 Kitchener, R. (2002). Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 89-105.   DOI
10 Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Routledge.
11 Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.   DOI
12 Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S. & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemology in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112.   DOI
13 Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549.   DOI
14 Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institution: Social process in the workplace and school. New York, NY: Continuum.
15 Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I. & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204.   DOI
16 Ford, M. J. & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391.   DOI
17 Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.   DOI
18 Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey(Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Arlingon, VA: NSTA Press.
19 Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567.   DOI
20 Goldman, A. I. & Whitcomb, D. (2011). Social epistemology: Essential readings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21 Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A. & Braten, I. (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
22 Tsai, C. C. (1999). Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths: A study of eighth graders' scientific epistemological views and learning in lab activities. Science Education, 83, 654-674.   DOI
23 Tsai, C. C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193-205.   DOI
24 Wickman, P-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325-344.   DOI
25 Wickman, P-O. & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601-623.   DOI
26 Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27 Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
28 Yang, F. Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning a socio-scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31, 65-84.   DOI
29 Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.   DOI
30 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
31 NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards. Achieve Inc.
32 Oh, P. S. & Ahn, Y. (2013). An analysis of classroom discourse as an epistemic practice: Based on elementary science classrooms. Elementary Science Education, 32(3), 269-284.
33 Oh, P. S. & Ahn, Y. (2015). Exploration of discursiveepistemic mechanisms in high school earth science lessons. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 36(4), 390-403.   DOI
34 Russ, R. (2014). Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science. Science Education, 98, 388-396.   DOI
35 Oh, P. S. (2014). Characteristics of teacher learning and changes in teachers' epistemic beliefs within a learning community of elementary science teachers. Elementary Science Education, 33(4), 683-699.   DOI
36 Oh, P. S. & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building 'Classroom Science Knowledge' (CSK). Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597-625.   DOI
37 Quennerstedt, M. (2013). Practical epistemologies in physical education practice. Sport, Education and Society, 18 (3), 311-333.   DOI
38 Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.   DOI
39 National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40 Lee, M-H., Johanson, R. E. & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92, 191-220.   DOI
41 Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E. & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Education, 90, 148-163.   DOI
42 Maeng, S. & Kim, C-J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students’ pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95(3), 431-457.   DOI
43 Ligozat, F., Wickman, P.-O. & Hamza, K. (2011). Using practical epistemology analysis to study the teacher's and students' joint action in the mathematical classroom. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2472-2481).
44 Rzeszow, Poland: University of Rzeszow. Liu, S. Y. & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1055-1073.   DOI
45 Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J. & Östman, L. (2009). Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication. Science Education, 93, 859-874.   DOI
46 Maeng, S., Park, Y-S. & Kim, C-J. (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.   DOI
47 Ministry of Education(MOE) (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [Issue 9].
48 National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49 Kelly, G. J. (2016). Methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 393-408). New York, NY: Routledge.
50 Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 69-80). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
51 King, P. & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52 Kelly, G. J. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.   DOI
53 Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.   DOI