Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1418

A Study on Writing Process Components and Writing Strategies in Argumentative Writing  

Kang, Sukjin (Jeonju National University of Education)
Jo, Junmo (Seoul National University)
Noh, Taehee (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.33, no.7, 2013 , pp. 1418-1430 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the writing process components and the writing strategies that appeared in the process of argumentative writing through students' think-alouds and semi-structured interviews. The subjects were 18 eighth graders. During argumentative writing, students were asked to decide whether they agreed with the given argument or not on the basis of information provided in the writing task. We categorized the writing process components and the writing strategies by analyzing the protocols of students' think-alouds and interviews, and evaluated the level of their written compositions. The analyses of the results indicated that the writing process components of argumentative writing showed different characteristics from those of problem solving writing in several components such as setting goals, organizing an outline, and evaluating content. In addition, the writing process component 'coordinating information' was newly discovered in argumentative writing. The writing strategies were categorized into four groups by the types of decision making (reflective/intuitive) and the existence of outline organization: Reflective decision making and outline organization, reflective decision making and no outline organization, intuitive decision making and outline organization, and intuitive decision making and no outline organization. Students with the reflective decision making and outline organization strategy were found to get the highest scores in written composition in terms of the relationship between the argument and its grounds, the rebuttal of the opposing argument, and the structure of the writing. Educational implications are discussed.
Keywords
argumentative writing; think-aloud; writing process component; and writing strategy;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186-210.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317-348.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62-76.
5 Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-218.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. D. Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 367-380). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
7 Paul, R. W. (1984). Critical thinking: Fundamental to education for a free society. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 4-14.
8 Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
9 Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin's model and the solving of illstructured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321-329.   DOI
10 Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Yang, E. M. (2004). The science writing heuristic: Using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 355-368). Newark: International Reading Association.
11 Wallace, R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 41-56.
12 Woolever, R. M., & Scott, K. P. (1988). Active learning in social studies: Promoting cognitive and social growth. Boston: Scott, Foresman and company.
13 김영철(2013). 글쓰기 과정에서의 비판적 사유 능력 역할. 교양교육연구, 7(2), 429-447.
14 곽재용(2000). 주장하는 글쓰기의 수행평가 방안. 한국초등국어교육, 17, 163-185.
15 교육과학기술부(2011). 과학과 교육과정. 교육과학기술부 고시 제 2011-361호.
16 김남미(2012). 비판적사고 능력 확장을 위한 글쓰기 교수 방안. 대학작문, 5, 133-166.
17 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Hand, B.(2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936.
18 노태희, 전경문, 한인옥, 김창민(1996). 학생의 인지발달 수준과 문제의 상황에 따른 화학 문제 해결 행동 비교. 한국과학교육학회지, 16(4), 389-400.
19 박정은, 유은정, 이선경, 김찬종(2009). 논증 구조 교육을 통한 고등학교 학생들의 과학 글쓰기 분석: 과학 글쓰기 장르에 따른 글쓰기 과제를 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(8), 824-847.   과학기술학회마을
20 배진숙(2008). 초등 사회과 의사결정 학습 연구의 변천과 의결정모형의 비교. 사회과교육연구, 15(1), 25-51.
21 서재천(1995). 의사결정능력 신장을 위한 사회과 수업논리 탐색. 사회과교육, 28, 29-49.
22 서혁(1997). 국어적 사고력과 텍스트의 주제적 이해. 국어교육학연구, 7(1), 131-164.
23 신현숙(2008). 분석적 평가에 의한 논증글 쓰기 수행의 발달적 차이. 교육학연구, 46(1), 1-29.
24 유지연, 강석진, 김지영, 노태희(2013). 발성사고법을 이용한 학생들의 과학 글쓰기 과정 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지, 33(5), 881-892.   과학기술학회마을
25 임천택, 이석규(2008). 초등학교 설득하는 글쓰기 교육의 비판적 고찰. 한국초등국어교육, 37, 331-370.
26 유지연, 박연옥, 노태희(2011). 비유 실험을 활용한 탐구학습이 과학영재의 실험설계 과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 31(6), 986-997.   과학기술학회마을
27 이재승(2002). 글쓰기 교육의 원리와 방법: 과정 중심 접근. 서울: 교육과학사.
28 이재승(2007). 과정 중심 글쓰기 교육의 허점과 보완. 한국초등국어교육, 33, 144-168.
29 정윤숙, 문공주, 김성원(2010). 과학과 관련된 사회적.윤리적 문제(socioscientific issues)에 관한 탐색: 중학교 과학교과서를 중심으로. 학습자중심교과 교육연구, 10(3), 435-456.
30 조효정(2006). 논증 구조 익히기를 통한 주장하는 글쓰기 지도 연구. 어문학교육, 32, 247-271.
31 최현섭, 박태호(1994). 과정중심의 전략적인 글쓰기 지도 방안. 한국초등국어교육, 10, 199-244.
32 황미향(2007). 과정 중심 쓰기 교육에 대한 비판적 고찰. 국어교육, 123, 243-278.
33 Byrnes, J. P., & Torney-Purta, J. V. (1995). Naive theories and decision making as part of higher order thinking in social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 23(3), 260-277.   DOI
34 Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.   DOI
35 Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457 478). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
36 Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.   DOI   ScienceOn