Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2011.31.8.1077

The Effects of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory on Preservice Science Teachers' Understanding of Chemistry Concepts and Writing  

Nam, Jeong-Hee (Pusan National University)
Koh, Mi-Rye (Pusan National University)
Bak, Deok-Chan (Pusan National University)
Lim, Jai-Hang (Pusan National University)
Lee, Dong-Won (Pusan National University)
Choi, Ae-Ran (Kent State University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.31, no.8, 2011 , pp. 1077-1091 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory on preservice science teachers' chemistry concepts understanding and writing. Five topics about argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory activities were developed using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Summary Writing Test, and Chemistry Concepts Test were developed as tools to examine the effects of this approach. Both Argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory activities and traditional general chemistry laboratory activities were implemented for the experimental group (23 students), and traditional general chemistry laboratory activities were implemented for the comparative group (16 students). Results of this study indicated that there were significant differences in both groups' chemistry concepts understanding and summary writing. The experimental group showed significantly higher mean score than comparative group in chemistry concepts understanding and summary writing. In the analysis of the sub-component of Summary Writing, there were no significant difference between both groups in 'Big Idea.' However, the experimental group gained significantly higher mean score in 'argumentation,' 'understanding of science concepts,' and 'rhetoric structure.' The results showed that argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory programs were effective in achieving chemistry concepts understanding and writing in general chemistry laboratory.
Keywords
argumentation-based general chemistry; Science Writing Heuristic (SWH); chemistry concept understanding; argumentation; writing;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Bodmer, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.   DOI
2 Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. M. (2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032-1038.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in school: A theoretical framework for evaluation inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
5 Collette, A. T., & Chiapetta, E. L. (1984). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company
6 Connolly, P., & Vilardi, T. (Eds.). (1989). Writing to learn mathematics and science. New York: Teachers College Press
7 Cooper, M. M. (2005). An introduction to small-group learning. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists' guide to effective teaching, 117-128. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
8 Dewey, J. (1916). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
9 Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
10 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 교육인적자원부 (2007). 2007개정 과학과 교육과정.
13 교육과학기술부(2009). 2009개정 과학과 교육과정.
14 교육과학기술부(2011). 2011년 교원자격검정 실무편람. 교육과학기술부 교원정책과.
15 교육부 (1997). 제7차 과학과 교육과정. 서울: 대한교과서주식회사
16 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Hand, B. (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학글쓰기의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936.
17 이강님 (2007). 구성주의 학습전략이 중학생의 과학 개념학습과 과학적 태도에 미치는 영향 -과학 글쓰기 중심으로-. 전북대학교 박사학위 논문.
18 이미경, 손원숙, 노언경 (2007). PISA 2006 결과 분석 연구. 한국교육과정평가원 연구리포트.
19 이효녕, 조현호, 손정주 (2009). 학교과학교육에 서의 논증활동 활용에 대한 교사들의 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(6), 666-679.
20 조정일(1991). 과학-기술-사회 교육과정에 관한연구, 한국과학교육학회지, 11(2), 87-101.
21 European Commission (1995). White paper on education and training: Teaching and learning-toward the learning society (white paper). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications in European Countries.
22 Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Middle school students' dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Kiel, Germany.
23 Duschl, R. & Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Argumentation processes in science learning. Paper presented at an International Conference entitled Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction. University of Victoria, BC.
24 Eisenberg, A., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4(2), 149-170.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Halliday, M. A., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
26 Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2006). When science and literacy meet in the secondary learning space: Implementing the science writing heuristic (SWH). University of Iowa.
27 Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, 227-260.
28 Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Harms, N. C. & Yager, R. E.(1981). What Research Says to the Science Teacher, vol. 3. Washington D. C. : National Science Teachers Association, 94-112.
30 Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
31 Shiland, T. W. (1999). Constructivism: The implications for laboratory work. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 107-109.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Esperet (Series eds.), Andriessen, J. E. B., Coirier, P. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing 5: Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
33 Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1991). I winyou lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36 Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.   DOI   ScienceOn
37 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students'knowledge and argumentation skills though dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 NSTA (1990). Science-Technology-Society: A New Effect for Providing Appropriate Science for All. An NSTA Position Statement, NSTA. Washington D. C.
39 Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideasabout- science"should be taught in school science? A delpi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Osborne, J., Erduran., S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the readers' world meets the world on paper?. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327.   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626.   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593.   DOI   ScienceOn
44 Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.   DOI   ScienceOn
45 Hohenshell, L. H. (2004). Enhancing science literacy through implementation of writingto- learn strategies : Exploratory studies in high school biology. Dissertation. Iowa State University.
46 Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.   DOI   ScienceOn
47 Hurd, P. (1958). Scientific literacy: Its meaning for american school. Education Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
48 Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
49 Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178.   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Munby, A. H. (1980). Analysing teaching for intellectual independence. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, & T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing curriculum in a new light: Essay from science education. Toronto: OISE Press.
51 National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52 Norris, S. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81(2), 239-258   DOI   ScienceOn
53 NSTA (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science Education for the 1980s. Atistsn NSTA Position Statement, NSTA, Washington D. C.