Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15267/keses.2022.41.1.30

Investigation of Elementary Students' Scientific Communication Competence Considering Grammatical Features of Language in Science Learning  

Maeng, Seungho (Seoul National University of Education)
Lee, Kwanhee (Seoul National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education / v.41, no.1, 2022 , pp. 30-43 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, elementary students' science communication competence was investigated based on the grammatical features expressed in their language-use in classroom discourse and science writings. The classes were designed to integrate the evidence-based reasoning framework and traditional learning cycle and were conducted on fifth graders in an elementary school. Eight elementary students' discourse data and writings were analyzed using lexico-grammatical resource analysis, which examined the discourse text's content and logical relations. The results revealed that the student language used in analyzing data, interpreting evidence, or constructing explanations did not precisely conform to the grammatical features in science language use. However, they provided examples of grammatical metaphors by nominalizing observed events in the classroom discourses and those of causal relations in their writings. Thus, elementary students can use science language grammatically from science language-use experiences through listening to a teacher's instructional discourses or recognizing the grammatical structures of science texts in workbooks. The opportunities in which elementary students experience the language-use model in science learning need to be offered to understand the appropriate language use in the epistemic context of evidence-based reasoning and learn literacy skills in science.
Keywords
science communication competence; grammatical features; evidence-based reasoning; literacy skills; language of science;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Tea chers' pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97, 936-972.   DOI
2 교육부(2015). 2015 과학과 교육과정.
3 권난주, 성혜진, 전상일(2017). 온라인 과학 기사를 활용한 과학 자유말하기 활동이 초등학생의 과학적 의사소통능력과 과학 태도에 미치는 영향. 현장과학교육, 11(3), 330-337.   DOI
4 김철훈, 이형절(2017). 라운드 로빈 기법을 적용한 과학수업이 초등학생의 과학적 의사소통능력, 과학 학습동기 및 학업성취도에 미치는 영향. 초등과학교육, 36(4), 394-404.
5 나지연, 장병기(2018). 초등학생의 과학적 의사소통 능력 함양을 위해 예비 초등교사들이 작성한 수업과정안의 특징. 초등과학교육, 37(1), 54-65.
6 신호심, 김현주(2012). 원운동 학습 상황에서 Toulmin의 논의구조(TAP)와 다이어그램을 이용한 대화적 논의과정 분석틀 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(5), 1007-1026.   DOI
7 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.   DOI
8 Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17-39.   DOI
9 Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: a functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10 Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What's your evidence? Engaging K-5 students in constructing explanations in science. Boston: Pearson.
11 Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141.   DOI
12 Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (pp. 68-85). Dordrecht: Springer.
13 백종호, 정대홍, 황세영(2014). 탐구 실험을 활용한 과학 교사 논변 과제 개발과정에서 드러난 쟁점 및 수정 효과: 기체에 대한 샤를의 법칙 실험 사례. 한국과학교육학회지, 34(2), 79-92.   DOI
14 하지훈, 신영준(2017). ALP 모형을 적용한 과학 수업이 초등학생의 과학적 의사소통능력에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 37(6), 1025-1035.   DOI
15 Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, Arnold.
16 Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202.   DOI
17 Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
18 맹승호, 박영신, 김찬종(2013). 논증 담화 분석 연구의 방법론적 고찰: 논증활동의 협력적 구성과 인식적 실행의 분석을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 33(4), 840-862.   DOI
19 Berla nd, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Cla ssroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216.   DOI
20 Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.   DOI
21 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case Study research in education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
22 Kim M., & Roth, W-M. (2018). Dialogical argumentation in elementary science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13, 1061-1085.   DOI
23 Kulgemeyer, C., & Schecker, H. (2013). Students explaining science: Assessment of science communication competence. Research in Science Education, 43, 2235-2256.   DOI
24 Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(2), 181-201.   DOI
25 Osborne, J., Erdura n, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enha ncing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI
26 Seah, L. H. (2016). Understanding the conceptual and language challenges encountered by grade 4 students when writing scientific explanations. Research in Science Education, 46, 413-437.   DOI
27 Walton, D. (1988). Burden of proof. Argumentation, 2, 233-254.   DOI
28 전성수(2013). 초등학생의 과학적 의사소통능력 검사도구 개발. 한국교원대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.