References
- 강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의과정을 강조한 교수.학습전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 450-461.
- 김희경, 송진웅 (2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형의 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지,24(6), 1216-1234.
- 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Hand, B. (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),922-936.
- 맹승호, 신명환, 차현정, 함석진, 신현정, 김찬종(2010). 지구과학 논문의 언어 특성 이해: 레지스터 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 31(7), 785-797.
- 박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증 기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국지구과학회지, 27(4), 401-415.
- 양일호, 이효정, 이효녕, 조현준 (2009). 과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 203-220.
- 이선경, 이선경, 김찬종, 김희백 (2005). 비형식적 과학 학습 자료의 시나리오 및 논증 구조: 영국 자연사박물관의 공룡관의 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(7),849-866.
- 이은경, 강성주 (2008). 학생-학생 언어적 상호작용분석을 통한 문제 해결형 탐구 모듈에서의 SWH 활용 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 130-138.
- 이정아, 맹승호, 김찬종 (2008). 과학수업담화의 새로운 독법: 교수학적 담화분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),832-847.
- 이주연, 이정아, 김찬종 (2010). 자연사 박물관에서 관람객의 학습을 중재하는 도슨트의 담화 특성에 대한 사례연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(6), 815-835.
- 차현정, 김찬종, 맹승호 (2011). 장르와 레지스터 분석에서 나타난 중학생의 지구과학 주제 글쓰기의 언어적 특징. 한국지구과학회지, 32(1), 84-98.
- 최문영, 맹승호, 박은지, 정원영, 김찬종 (2012). 관람대화의 흐름과 상호작용의 양상에 기반한 자연사 전시관의 전시물과 관람객 간 상호작용적 학습 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(7), 1251-1268.
- Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc. On behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.
- Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-ellaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities'adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
- Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530551
- Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. New York, NY: Continuum.
- Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
- Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. 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
- Duschl, R. A. (2003a). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Arlingon, VA: NSTA Press.
- Duschl, R. A. (2003b). The assessment of argumentation and explanation: Creating and supporting teachers'feedback strategies. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 139-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
- Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
- Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.
- Erduran, S., & Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspective from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
- 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
- Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20482
- Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
- Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London, UK: Continuum.
- Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Amold.
- Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson"or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
- Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
- Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<883::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I
- Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world. (pp. 145-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. , 86, 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
- Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
- Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137-157). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
- Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students'scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2
- Maeng, S., & Kim, C-J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students'pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95(3), 431-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20429
- National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
- National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington DC: National Academy Press.
- National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Washington DC:National Academy Press.
- Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 17-37). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
- Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
- Resnick, L. B., Saljo, R., Pontecorvo, C., & Burge, B. (1997). Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
- Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education:Current perspectives and recommendations for future direction. Science Education, 92, 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
- Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.
- van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
Cited by
- Issues and Effects in Developing Inquiry-Based Argumentation Task for Science Teachers: A Case of Charles' Law Experiment vol.34, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0079
- Development of an Analytical Framework for Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: Based on Discourse Clusters and Schemes vol.35, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0509
- 공통맥락 형성의 관점에서 살펴본 마찰력에 대한 소집단 토론의 특징 vol.37, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0301
- 초등 과학 영재 학생들의 자연선택 개념 이해를 위한 논변 활동에서 나타난 인식적 이해와 논변활동 수준 분석 vol.37, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.565
- 머신 러닝을 활용한 과학 논변 구성 요소 코딩 자동화 가능성 탐색 연구 vol.38, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.219
- 과학 학습의 지식구성 과정에 대한 실제적 인식론 분석 vol.37, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.2.173
- 초등학생들의 소집단 과학 논의 활동에 나타나는 인식적 고려사항 탐색 vol.39, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.59
- 기계 학습을 활용한 논증 수준 자동 채점 및 논증 패턴 분석 vol.41, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.3.203