Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of an Argumentation between an Astronomers group and a Counter Astronomers group

두 천문학자 집단의 논증과정 분석

  • Received : 2009.12.08
  • Accepted : 2010.04.27
  • Published : 2010.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purposes of this study are to analyze an argumentation between an astronomers group and a counter astronomers group that have concluded different results by using the same methods and to find an implication for applying to school science. For this study, two science research papers, which have been interpreted differently, were selected and analyzed in spite of observing same area in Titan and using same data process method. Their key issues are involved in interpretation and explanation, and the credibility of observed data. From this result, scientific argumentation accompanied with the credibility evaluation about the justification process of scientific explanation and experiment results needs to be developed.

이 연구는 동일한 연구 방법으로 다른 결론을 내린 두 천문학자 집단 간의 논증과정을 분석하고 학교과학교육 현장에 적용을 위한 시사점을 얻는 데 목적이 있다. 이 연구를 위해, 동일한 관측 대상과 자료 처리 방법에도 불구하고 서로 다르게 해석한 두 논문을 선정하고 분석하였다. 이 두 논문의 쟁점은 결과의 해석과 설명, 그리고 관측된 자료의 신빙성에 관련되어 있다. 이 결과로부터, 과학적 설명의 정당화 과정과 실험 결과에 대한 신빙성 평가활동이 수반되는 과학적 논증활동이 전개될 필요가 있음을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석진, 김창민, 노태희 (2000). 소집단 토론 과정에서의 언어적 상호작용 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(3), 353-363.
  2. 김영민 (2006). Kepler의 망막 상 이론 형성 과정에서의 과학적 문제 발견과 귀추적 사고. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(7), 835-842.
  3. 김희경, 강태욱, 송진웅 (2003). 7차 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교과서 물리단원 실험의 특징. 새물리, 47(6), 387-394.
  4. 교육과학기술부 (2008). 교육인적자원부 고시 제 2006-75호 및 제2007-79호에 따른 중학교 교육과정 해설 III. 서울: 대한교과서 주식회사.
  5. 박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증 기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국지구과학회지, 27(4), 401-415.
  6. 양일호, 이효정, 이효녕, 조현준 (2009). 과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 203-220.
  7. 이범홍, 이양락, 홍미영 (1999). 토의토론 학습과 중등학교 과학교육. 이홍수 편저. 교수-학습자료 개발: 연구보고 RR 97-II-6, (pp. 393-414). 한국교원대학교 부설 교과교육공동연구소.
  8. 이봉우 (2004). 온라인 물리탐구토론에 나타난 학생들의 상호작용 유형 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(3), 638-645.
  9. 이봉우, 김희경 (2004). 학생들의 인식조사를 통한 온라인 물리탐구토론의 특징. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1206-1215.
  10. 이야진 (2009). 토성 위성 타이탄에 비가 내리나요? Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.astronomy2009.kr/archive/gallery/scimag/01/pdf/20090202_210515.pdf
  11. 이효녕, 조현준, 손정주 (2009). 학교과학교육에서의 논증활동 활용에 대한 교사들의 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(6), 666-679.
  12. 인터넷 중앙일보 (2008). 타이탄에 비 내린다고? 국내외 과학자들 논쟁. Retrieved Aug. 30, 2008, from http://itview.joins.com/article/itview/article.asp?total_id=3204618
  13. 위수민, 조현준, 김선홍, 이효녕 (2009). 학생 특성에 따른 소그룹 논증 수준 분석. 과학교육연구지, 33(1), 1-11.
  14. 조현준 (2009). 천문학자의 연구 과정과 추론 분석. 한국교원대학교 박사학위 논문.
  15. 조현준, 양일호, 송윤미, 이효녕 (2008). 초등과학 영재의 논증활동에서 사용된 증거의 수준 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(5), 495-505.
  16. Chen, S. (2006). Development of and instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 90(5), 803-819. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20147
  17. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Historical research. a chapter in Research Methods in Education, fifth edition, (pp. 158-168). New York: Routledge Falmer.
  18. Cros, D., Chastrette, M., & Fayol, M. (1987). Conceptions of second year university students of some fundamental notions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 331-336.
  19. Dobry, D. (2005). Remembering a pioneer in cognitive studies. Teachers College - Columbia University: News. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news/article.htm?id=5135&tid=36.
  20. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  21. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  22. Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2005). The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In K. Bosersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof. (Eds.). Research and the quality of science education, (pp. 381-394). Dordrecht.
  23. Gable, D. & Bunce, D. (1984). Research on problem solving in chemistry. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, (pp. 301-326). New York: Macmillan.
  24. Gruber, H. E. (1974). Darwin on Man: A psychological study of scientific creativity with Darwin's early and unpublished notebooks. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc.
  25. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists'reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1025
  26. Jimemex-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson"or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  27. Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1994). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students'use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314 342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  29. Kim, C., & Cunningham, D. (2003). A syllogism for formulating hypotheses. Semiotica, 144, 303-317.
  30. Kruijff, G.-J. M. (2005). Peirces' late theory of abduction: A comprehensive account. Semiotica, 153, 431-454.
  31. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
  32. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  33. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
  34. Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, Reason, and Science. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  35. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.
  36. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  37. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liednd, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students'understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10035
  38. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  39. Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: The importance of strategies. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FODA.0000042843.48932.25
  40. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publication.
  41. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  42. Thagard, P. (1998). Ulcers and bacteria I: Discover and acceptance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Science, 29, 107-136.
  43. Walton, D. N. (1990). What is reasoning? what is an argument? Journal of Philosophy, 87, 399-419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
  44. Wegener, A. (1975). The origin of lunar craters. The Moon, 14, 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00565323
  45. Welch, W. (Ed.). (1979). Twenty-five years of science curriculum development. (Vol. 7). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association
  46. Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row.
  47. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, and the arts. John Wiley & Sons.
  48. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 559-589 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4
  49. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students'knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Cited by

  1. 집단지성을 활용한 예비교사들의 과학지식 형성과정 탐색 vol.33, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.963
  2. 논변, 논의 그리고 논증: 개념의 명료화를 위한 문헌조사 연구 vol.33, pp.6, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119