• 제목/요약/키워드: Toulmin's approach

검색결과 3건 처리시간 0.02초

Claim-Evidence Approach for the Opportunity of Scientific Argumentation

  • Park, Young-Shin
    • 한국과학교육학회지
    • /
    • 제26권5호
    • /
    • pp.620-636
    • /
    • 2006
  • The purpose of this study was to analyze one science teacher's understanding of student argumentation and his explicit teaching strategies for implementing it in the classroom. One middle school science teacher, Mr. Field, and his students of 54 participated in this study. Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews, 60 hours of classroom observations, and two times of students' lab reports for eight weeks. Coding categories were developed describing the teacher's understanding of scientific argumentation and a description of the main teaching strategy, the Claim-Evidence Approach, was introduced. Toulmin's approach was employed to analyze student discourse as responses to see how much of this discourse was argumentative. The results indicated that Mr. Field defined scientific inquiry as the abilities of procedural skills through experimentation and of reasoning skills through argumentation. The Claim-Evidence Approach provided students with opportunities to develop their own claims based on their readings, design the investigation for evidence, and differentiate pieces of evidence from data to support their claims and refute others. During this approach, the teacher's role of scaffolding was critical to shift students' less extensive argumentation to more extensive argumentation through his prompts and questions. The different level of teacher's involvement, his explicit teaching strategy, and the students' scientific knowledge influenced the students' ability to develop and improve argumentation.

사회 속 과학 쟁점에 대한 소집단 논변 상호작용 분석을 위한 방법론 고찰 (Theoretical Considerations on Analytical Framework Design for the Interactions between Participants in Group Argumentation on Socio-Scientific Issues)

  • 박지영;김희백
    • 한국과학교육학회지
    • /
    • 제32권4호
    • /
    • pp.604-624
    • /
    • 2012
  • 본 연구는 한 학기 동안 비과학 전공 대학생들의 사회 속 과학 쟁점에 대한 일련의 소집단 논변을 참여자 상호작용을 중심으로 설명하는 분석틀 마련을 위한 연구이다. 분석틀 마련을 위하여 소집단 논변이 진행되는 상황의 특성 및 논변과 사회적 상호작용 분석을 위한 방법들을 고찰하였다. 연구 상황과 관련하여 논변의 제재가 사회 속 과학 쟁점이며, 참여자들의 논변 경험이 제한되었음을 고려하였다. 따라서 소집단 논변을 통해 관련된 다양한 입장과 견해를 고려했는지, 그리고 참여자의 상호작용 역할 및 일련의 논변을 통한 변화와 발달을 제시할 수 있는 분석틀을 고안하고자 하였다. 기존 분석 방법들 중 과학교육에서 논변의 분석에 가장 빈번히 사용된 Toulmin이 제시한 논변의 구조를 고찰하고, 어떻게 변형되어 다른 연구에 이용되었는지 살펴보았다. 또한 상호작용의 기능과 전략을 설명한 연구들을 토대로 하여 각 발화의 기능을 구분하였다. 이러한 문헌 연구를 바탕으로 분석틀을 마련하였는데, 상호작용 역할과 절 내에서의 기능, 논변 수준에 기여하는 발화를 나타내는 것으로 각 발화를 15개 종류로 구분하여 제시하였다. 도입에 해당하는'시작', '사담', 응답에 해당하는 '단정지음', '응답', '반복', '약간부연', '다른면', '종합', '정교화', '반박정교화', 그리고 반응에 해당하는 '단순응대', '핀잔', '확인', '회의', '설명요청'으로 구분하고, 이전의 발화에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 분석하고 종합한 '향상발화'와 그렇지 않은 '단순발화'로 수준을 구분하였다. 고안한 분석틀로 '에이즈 치료약 개발비와 약소국의 특허권 불인정 주장' 쟁점에 대한 소집단 논변분석 사례를 제시하였다. 분석 결과 고안한 분석틀은 소집단 논변 동안 참여자들이 다양한 견해를 인식하고 관련 과학 지식을 고려했는지를 드러내는데 적절하였다. 또한 소집단 논변 동안 각 참여자의 역할 및 참여자들의 상호작용과 논변의 수준을 관련지어 나타낼 수 있었다. 고안한 분석틀은 정성적인 분석뿐만 아니라 정량적인 분석을 가능하게 함으로서 소집단 구성원들의 상호작용 양상 및 두 소집단의 논변 양상에 대한 비교를 가능하게 하였다.

새로운 간호윤리학 방법론;통합된 사례방법론 (An integrated Method of New Casuistry and Specified Principlism as Nursing Ethics Methodology)

  • 엄영란
    • 간호행정학회지
    • /
    • 제3권1호
    • /
    • pp.51-64
    • /
    • 1997
  • The purpose of the study was to introduce an integrated approach of new Casuistry and specified principlism in resolving ethical problems and studying nursing ethics. In studying clinical ethics and nursing ethics, there is no systematic research method. While nurses often experience ethical dilemmas in practice, much of previous research on nursing ethics has focused merely on describing the existing problems. In addition, ethists presented theoretical analysis and critics rather than providing the specific problems solving strategies. There is a need in clinical situations for an integrated method which can provide the objective description for existing problem situations as well as specific problem solving methods. We inherit two distinct ways of discussing ethical issues. One of these frames these issues in terms of principles, rules, and other general ideas; the other focuses on the specific features of particular kinds of moral cases. In the first way general ethical rules relate to specific moral cases in a theoretical manner, with universal rules serving as "axioms" from which particular moral judgments are deduced as theorems. In the seconds, this relation is frankly practical. with general moral rules serving as "maxims", which can be fully understood only in terms of the paradigmatic cases that define their meaning and force. Theoretical arguments are structured in ways that free them from any dependence on the circumstances of their presentation and ensure them a validity of a kind that is not affected by the practical context of use. In formal arguments particular conclusions are deduced from("entailed by") the initial axioms or universal principles that are the apex of the argument. So the truth or certainty that attaches to those axioms flows downward to the specific instances to be "proved". In the language of formal logic, the axioms are major premises, the facts that specify the present instance are minor premises, and the conclusion to be "proved" is deduced (follows necessarily) from the initial presises. Practical arguments, by contrast, involve a wider range of factors than formal deductions and are read with an eye to their occasion of use. Instead of aiming at strict entailments, they draw on the outcomes of previous experience, carrying over the procedures used to resolve earlier problems and reapply them in new problmatic situations. Practical arguments depend for their power on how closely the present circumstances resemble those of the earlier precedent cases for which this particular type of argument was originally devised. So. in practical arguments, the truths and certitudes established in the precedent cases pass sideways, so as to provide "resolutions" of later problems. In the language of rational analysis, the facts of the present case define the gounds on which any resolution must be based; the general considerations that carried wight in similar situations provide warrants that help settle future cases. So the resolution of any problem holds good presumptively; its strengh depends on the similarities between the present case and the prededents; and its soundness can be challenged (or rebutted) in situations that are recognized ans exceptional. Jonsen & Toulmin (1988), and Jonsen (1991) introduce New Casuistry as a practical method. The oxford English Dictionary defines casuistry quite accurately as "that part of ethics which resolves cases of conscience, applying the general rules of religion and morality to particular instances in which circumstances alter cases or in which there appears to be a conflict of duties." They modified the casuistry of the medieval ages to use in clinical situations which is characterized by "the typology of cases and the analogy as an inference method". A case is the unit of analysis. The structure of case was made with interaction of situation and moral rules. The situation is what surrounds or stands around. The moral rule is the essence of case. The analogy can be objective because "the grounds, the warrants, the theoretical backing, the modal qualifiers" are identified in the cases. The specified principlism was the method that Degrazia (1992) integrated the principlism and the specification introduced by Richardson (1990). In this method, the principle is specified by adding information about limitations of the scope and restricting the range of the principle. This should be substantive qualifications. The integrated method is an combination of the New Casuistry and the specified principlism. For example, the study was "Ethical problems experienced by nurses in the care of terminally ill patients"(Um, 1994). A semi-structured in-depth interview was conducted for fifteen nurses who mainly took care of terminally ill patients. The first stage, twenty one cases were identified as relevant to the topic, and then were classified to four types of problems. For instance, one of these types was the patient's refusal of care. The second stage, the ethical problems in the case were defined, and then the case was analyzed. This was to analyze the reasons, the ethical values, and the related ethical principles in the cases. Then the interpretation was synthetically done by integration of the result of analysis and the situation. The third stage was the ordering phase of the cases, which was done according to the result of the interpretation and the common principles in the cases. The first two stages describe the methodology of new casuistry, and the final stage was for the methodology of the specified principlism. The common principles were the principle of autonomy and the principle of caring. The principle of autonomy was specified; when competent patients refused care, nurse should discontinue the care to respect for the patients' decision. The principle of caring was also specified; when the competent patients refused care, nurses should continue to provide the care in spite of the patients' refusal to preserve their life. These specification may lead the opposite behavior, which emphasizes the importance of nurse's will and intentions to make their decision in the clinical situations.

  • PDF