Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.2.372

Small Group Interaction and Norms in the Process of Constructing a Model for Blood Flow in the Heart  

Kang, Eun-Hee (Seoul National University)
Kim, Chan-Jong (Seoul National University)
Choe, Seung-Urn (Seoul National University)
Yoo, June-Hee (Seoul National University)
Park, Hyun-Ju (Chosun University)
Lee, Shin-Young (Seoul National University)
Kim, Heui-Baik (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.32, no.2, 2012 , pp. 372-387 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to identify unique small group norms and their influence on the process of constructing a scientific model. We developed instructional materials for the construction of a model of blood flow in the heart and conducted research on eighth-grade students from one middle school. We randomly selected 10 small groups, and videotaped and recorded their dialogues and behaviors. The data was categorized according to the types of interaction and then analyzed to investigate the characteristics of group norms and models in one or two representative groups for each type. The results show that the types of interaction, the quality of the group models, and the group norms were different in each group. Even though one teacher guided students through the same task in the inquiry context, each group revealed different patterns of discourse and behavior, which were based on norms of cognitive responsibility, the need for justification, participation, and membership. With the exception of one group, there was little cognitive responsibility and justification for students' opinions. Ultimately, these norms influenced the model construction of small groups. A group that forms norms to encourage the active participation and justify members' opinions with cognitive responsibility was encouraged to do inferential thinking and construct a group model close to the target model. This study has instructional implications for the establishment of a classroom environment that facilitates learning through small group activities.
Keywords
group norm; social interaction; scientific model co-construction; analogical model;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Crawford, B. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (1999). Elements of a community of learners in a middle school science classroom. Science Education, 83(6), 701-723.   DOI
2 Dixon, J. K., Egendoerfer, L. A., & Clements, T. (2009). Do they really need to raise their hands? Challenging a traditional social norm in a second grade mathematics classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1067-1076.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.   DOI
4 Graham, C. R. (2003). A model of norm development for computer-mediated teamwork. Small Group Research, 34(3), 322-352.   DOI
5 Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
6 Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352-381.   DOI
7 Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Howe, C. J., & McWilliam, D. (2006). Opposition in social interaction amongst children: Why intellectual benefits do not mean social costs. Social Development, 15(2), 205-231.   DOI
9 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(6), 757-792.   DOI
10 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
11 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Eds.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173-202). New York: Praeger.
12 Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers'knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273-1292.   DOI
13 Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning: From theory to practice. Routledge, New York. p. 170.
14 Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II. Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.   DOI
15 Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Owen, W. F. (1985). Metaphor analysis of cohesiveness in small discussion groups. Small Group Behavior, 16, 415-424.   DOI
17 Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341-371.   DOI
18 Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.   DOI
19 Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (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. 71-88). New York: Springer.
21 Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwarz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776-793.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 443-466.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group interaction processes in learning lower-secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 556-576.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Towns, M. H., & Grant, E. R. (1997). "I believe I will go out of this class actually knowing something": Cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 819-835.   DOI
27 Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841-873). New York: Macmillan.
28 White, K. M. & Wellington, L. (2009). Predicting participation in group parenting education in an Australian sample: The role of attitudes, norms, and control factors. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 173-189.   DOI
29 Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentations, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 22(5), 390-408.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievements in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 60-66.   DOI
32 박지영 (2009). 사회 속 과학 쟁점에 대한 소집단 논변활동의 이해: 교육대학교 학생들의 의사소통 분위기를 중심으로. 서울대학교 박사학위 논문.
33 Zajac, R. J., & Hartup, W. W. (1997). Friends as coworkers: research review and classroom implications. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 3-13.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for Collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7-44.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 국립국어원 (2012). 표준국어대사전. 국립국어교육원 표준국어대사전 홈페이지. http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/main.jsp.
37 김찬종, 이선경 (2005). 과학교실의 수업담화와 사회-과학적 규범의 특징: 초임 과학교사의 사례 연구. 한국교원교육연구, 22(3), 359-386.
38 방정숙 (2001). 사회수학적 규범과 수학교실 문화. 대한수학교육학회지, 11(2), 273-289.
39 방정숙 (2004). 초등수학교실문화의 개선: 사회수학적 규범과 수학적 관행. 대한수학교육학회지, 14(3), 283-304.
40 정현철, 박영신, 황동주 (2008). 한국영재교육에서 소집단 탐구활동에 대한 인식 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 29(2), 151-162.
41 조혜자, 방희정 (2006). 암묵적인 자기 범주화의 성차. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 11(2), 245-265.
42 Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Situative versus cognitive perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18-21.
43 Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2010). Peer relations in school. In K. Littleton, C. Wood & K. Starrman (Eds.), International Handbook of Psychology in Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
44 Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science and Education, 20, 103-140.   DOI
45 Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.   DOI   ScienceOn