Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2007.27.1.37

Scientific Explanations by Earth Science Teachers in Secondary Schools: Analyses of the Logical Forms and Discursive Features  

Oh, Phil-Seok (Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.27, no.1, 2007 , pp. 37-49 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to classify the logical forms of scientific explanations provided by teachers in secondary earth science classrooms, to examine the characteristics of the scientific explanations in different forms, and to identify the roles of the teacher and students in discursive practices for scientific explanations. Data came from the earth science teachers who participated in overseas teacher in-service programs in the years 2003 and 2004. A total of 18 video-taped lessons and their verbatim transcriptions were analyzed. The result showed that deductive-nomological explanations occurred most frequently in earth science classrooms and that the deductive-nomological model was well-suited to those problems for which there existed firmly established scientific laws or principles to construct scientific explanations. However, abductive explanations were presented when the classes dealt with retrodictive tasks of earth science. The statistical-probabilistic and statistical-relevance models were also employed in explaining weather proverbs and unusual changes of weather, respectively. Most of the scientific explanations were completed through the teachers' monologic utterances, and students assumed passive roles in discursive practices for developing scientific explanations. Implications for science lessons and science education research were discussed.
Keywords
scientific explanation; deductive-nomological model; statistical-probabilistic model; statistical-relevance model; abductive explanation; earth science teacher;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Fetzer, J. H. (2002). Propensities and frequencies: Inference to the best explanation. Sythesis, 132, 27-61
2 Gee, J. P., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M D. leCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 277-291). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
3 Green, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
4 Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Oh, P. S. (2005). Discursive roles of the teacher during class sessions for students presenting their science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1825-185l   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World
7 Salmon, W. C. (1971). Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press
8 Mayer, R. E. (1992). Knowledge and thought: Mental models that support scientific reasoning. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 226-243). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
9 Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(I), 121-143   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
11 Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M, Smith, M L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535-563   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Pitt, J. C. (Ed.), (1988). Theories of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press
13 Martin, M (1985). Concepts of science education: A philosophical analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America
14 Ohlsson, S. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp, 91-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
15 Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 361-374   DOI
16 Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: The Free Press
17 Shin, M-K., Yager, R. E., Oh, P. S., & Lee, M-K. (2003). Changes in science classrooms after experiencing an international professional staff development program International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 505-522   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72(1), 41-49   DOI
19 Woodward, J. (1994). Effects of curriculum discourse style on eighth graders' recall and problem solving in earth science. The Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 299-314   DOI   ScienceOn
20 오필석 (2005) '비계설정' (scaffolding) 의 개념화. 교육적 담화 분석을 위한 한 시도. 2005 년 과학교육자 종합학술대회 자료집, 213-214
21 Psillos, S. (2000). Abduction: Between conceptual richness and computational complexity: In P. A. Flach & A. C. Kakas (Eds.), Abduction and induction (pp, 59-74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
22 Chi, M T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477
23 Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
24 Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Process of discovery and explanation. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
25 Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
26 Engelhardt, W. von, & Zirmnermann, J. (1982). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fischer) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
27 Edwards, n, & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom New York, NY: McMillan
28 Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (1992). 'Scaffolding' learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 186-195). London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton
29 Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
30 Gerrard, A. J. (1984). Multiple working hypotheses and equifinality in geomorphology: Comments on the recent articles by Haines-Young and Fetch, Transactions of the Institute of British Geography, New Series, 9(3), 364-366   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press