Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2010.31.1.036

A Comparative Analysis of the Linguistic Features of Texts used in the unit of Volcano and Earthquake in Korean Elementary and Secondary School Science Textbooks  

Shin, Myung-Hwan (Department of Earth Science Education, Seoul National University)
Maeng, Seung-Ho (Department of Earth Science Education, Seoul National University)
Kim, Chan-Jong (Department of Earth Science Education, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean earth science society / v.31, no.1, 2010 , pp. 36-50 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the aspect of variation of the texts in elementary and secondary school science textbooks at each grade level in terms of linguistic features. Data included some of the written texts related to 'Volcano and Earthquake' in Korean elementary and secondary school science textbooks in the seventh National Curriculum. The written texts were comparatively analyzed in terms of textual meaning, interpersonal meaning, and ideational meaning. Results revealed that there were different structures and linguistic features of the texts in school science textbooks depending on the grade level. Therefore, we argue that the differences in this study may make students feel difficult and strange when they read and understand science textbooks. We suggest that science teachers need to play the role of a mediator between students' understanding and the structural features of the scientific language in science learning.
Keywords
science textbook; linguistic features; text analysis; register;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Vygotsky, L.S., 1978, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, MA, USA, 159 p.
2 Wellington, J. and Osborne, J., 2001, Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, 152 p.
3 Westby, C. and Torres-Velasquez, D., 2000, Developing scientific literacy: A sociocultural approach. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 101-110.   DOI
4 Yore, L.D., Hand, B.M., and Florence, M.K., 2004, Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 338-369.   DOI
5 Young, R.F. and Nguyen, H.T., 2002, Modes of meaning in high school science. Applied Linguistics, 23, 348-372.   DOI
6 Eggins, S., 2004, An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum, London, UK, 384 p.
7 Fang, Z., 2005, Scientific literacy: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective. Science Education, 89, 335-347.   DOI
8 Fang, Z., 2006, The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491-520.   DOI
9 Fang, Z. and Schleppegrell, M.J., 2008, Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, USA, 135 p.
10 Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R., 1993, Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, USA, 283 p.
11 Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., 2004, An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). Arnold, London, UK, 689 p.
12 Lemke, J.L., 1990, Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation, NJ, USA, 261 p.
13 Martin, J.R. and Veel, R., 1998, Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. Routledge, London, UK, 368 p.
14 Martin, J.R. and Rose, D., 2003, Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Continuum, London, UK, 293 p.
15 Reeves, C., 2005, The language of science. Routledge, NY, USA, 131 p.
16 강범모 역, 2007, 언어학의 역사: 스토아학파부터 촘스키까지. 한국문화사, 서울, 437 p.
17 Robins, R.H., 1997, A short history of Linguistics (4th ed.). Longman, NY, USA, 437 p.
18 Schleppegrell, M.J., 2004, The language of schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, USA, 190 p.
19 Unsworth, L., 2001, Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 585-609.   DOI
20 맹승호, 2008, 수업 담화 장르에 기반한 광물과 암석 단원과학 수업의 양태 변화: 담화 리지스터와 언어 코드적접근. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문, 308 p.
21 맹승호, 이정아, 김찬종, 2007, 지구과학 논문과 지구과학 교과서 텍스트의 과학 언어적 특성 비교. 한국과학교육학회지, 27, 367-378.   과학기술학회마을
22 오강호, 고영구, 윤석태, 2004, 국민공통기본교육과정 과학과의 해양영역에 관련된 용어 및 탐구의 연계성 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 25, 576-585.   과학기술학회마을
23 이양락, 박재근, 이봉우, 박순경, 정영근, 2004, 과학과 교육내용 적정성 분석 및 평가. 한국교육과정평가원, 연구보고 RRC 2004-1-6, 631 p.
24 이정아, 맹승호, 김혜리, 김찬종, 2007, 교육과정 변천에 따른 초등 과학 교과서 텍스트에 대한 체계기능언어학적분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 27, 242-252.
25 이정아, 맹승호, 김찬종, 2008, 과학수업담화의 새로운 독법: 교수학적 담화분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28, 832-847.   과학기술학회마을
26 정재훈, 1999, 체계.기능 언어 이론의 이해. 언어정보, 2, 219-257.
27 Darian, S., 2003, Understanding the language of science. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA, 248 p.
28 정화숙, 박현숙, 임영진, 김자림, 2005, 제7차 교육과정에 의한 중등 과학 교과서의 광합성 영역에 대한 용어와 탐구의 연계성 분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 33, 196-208.
29 최행임, 이효녕, 조현준, 2008, 10학년 과학 교과서 지구과학 용어 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 29, 363-371.   과학기술학회마을   DOI
30 Bloor, T. and Bloor, M., 2004, The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach (2nd ed.). Arnold, London, UK, 315 p.