한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제34권8호
  • /
  • Pages.787-794
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

논의를 강조한 주장과 증거 글쓰기 수업을 경험한 학생들의 과학 주제 글쓰기 및 인식 분석

Analysis of Student Science Writing and Perception on Argument-Based Claim and Evidence Writing Approach

  • 투고 : 2014.11.25
  • 심사 : 2014.12.26
  • 발행 : 2014.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 논의를 강조한 주장과 증거 글쓰기 교수 학습 적용 후 학생들의 주제 글쓰기를 분석하였고 수업에 대한 학생들의 인식을 알아보았다. 서울 소재 C여자 고등학교 2학년 3개 학급의 학생 108명을 실험집단으로 하여 5개 주제에 대하여 논의를 강조한 주장과 증거 글쓰기 교수 학습 프로그램을 적용하였고 같은 학교 3학년 3개 학급의 학생 99명을 비교집단으로 하여 전통적 강의식 수업을 적용하였다. 논의를 강조한 주장과 증거 글쓰기 교수 학습을 적용한 실험집단의 주제 글쓰기는 '친환경 에너지'의 big idea 요소를 제외한 다른 모든 요소에서 비교집단보다 통계적으로 유의미하게 높은 점수를 나타났다(p<.05). '친환경 에너지'의 경우, 8개의 개념 중 6개의 개념, '판구조론'의 경우 8개의 개념 중 4개의 개념에 대하여 실험집단 학생들이 비교집단보다 주제 글쓰기에서 더 많이 서술하였다. 논의를 강조한 주장과 증거 글쓰기 수업에서 학생들은 의문을 만들고 실험 설계와 수행, 자료해석, 주장과 증거를 만드는 동안 끊임없이 동료들과 논의를 하도록 안내된다. 또한 실험 결과나 주어진 자료의 해석을 통해 주장을 뒷받침하는 증거의 정확성, 충분성, 타당성을 높이기 위해 노력하면서 자신의 추론 과정을 돌아보고 개념을 정교화, 명료화한다. 이러한 논의를 강조한 주장과 증거 글쓰기의 과정이 학생들의 주제 글쓰기의 big idea, 개념, 다중 표상, 논리적 구조 형성과 포함된 개념의 형성에 도움이 된 것으로 보인다. 본 연구의 결과는 과학 교육 현장에서 향후 논의를 강조한 주장과 증거 글쓰기와 같은 수업을 지속적으로 적용해야 함을 시사한다.

The purpose of this study was to examine the science writing and perception of students who experienced the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach. One hundred and eight grade 11 students were assigned to an experimental group, while 99 grade 12 students were assigned to a comparative group in their earth science classes. Students' science writings on two science topics were scored using an analytic rubric developed in this study. The comparison of experimental and comparative groups in science writing was carried out using an independent two samples t-test. Students' perception on the instruction was examined using an open-ended survey. Science writing by the experimental group scored significantly higher than that by the comparative group, except for the big idea of 'green energy'. For six concepts in 'green energy' and four concepts in 'plate tectonics, there were more students in the experimental group than the comparative group who indicated them in their science writing. Students' perception on the instruction was positive in that they mentioned planning and conducting inquiry, citing of claims and evidence, and developing inquiry questions were helpful in science learning. The results of this study imply that the argument-based claim and evidence writing approach should be implemented in science classrooms for students to develop a conceptual framework for science.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are they difference? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629
  2. Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
  3. Choi, A., Hand. B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students' written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763-1783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9330-1
  4. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
  5. Grimberg, B., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive Pathways: analysis of students' written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503-521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701704805
  6. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. M. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070252
  7. Jang, K. H. (2013). Effect of argumentation-based negotiation in the science writing heuristic(swh) approach on students' question and claim-evidence(Doctoral dissertation, Pusan National University).
  8. Jang, K. H., Nam, J. H., & Choi, A. R. (2012). The effects of argument-based inquiry using the science writing heuristic approach on argument structure in science writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1099-1108. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1099
  9. Kang, N. H., & Lee, E. M. (2013). An analysis of inquiry activities in high school physics textbooks for the 2009 revised science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.132
  10. Kelly, G., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691-718. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<691::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-G
  11. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography student use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  12. Keys, C. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  13. Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  14. Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2012). How does the science writing heuristic approach affect students' performance of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 428-436. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20013A
  15. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X
  16. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  17. Kwak, K. H., & Nam, J. H. (2009). Enhancing the quality of students' argumentation and characteristics of students' argumentation in different contexts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(4), 400-413.
  18. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.). Reading science: critical and functional perspectives of discourses of science(pp. 87-111). Oxford: Routledge.
  19. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2009). 2009 Science Education Curriculum. Notification No. 2009-41 of the Ministry of Education. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology.
  20. Nam, J. H., Kwak, K. H., Jang, K. H., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using science writing heuristic in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
  21. Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic approach in the 8thgrade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1111-1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9250-3
  22. Nam, J. H., Koh, M. R., Bak, D. C., Lim, J. H., Lee, D. W., & Choi, A. R. (2011). The effects of argumentation-based general chemistry laboratory on pre-service teachers' understanding of chemistry concepts and writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1077-1091.
  23. National Research Council. (2013). The next generation science standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  24. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  25. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559
  26. Park, S. H., & Chung, Y. L. (2012). The effect of science writing heuristic on scientific inquiry skills, logical thinking, and metacognition of middle school students. Biology Education, 40(3), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.3.367
  27. Park, S., & Moon, S. (2013). The effect of the Science Writing Heuristic laboratory class on creative thinking and critical thinking of middle school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1259-1272. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1259
  28. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00003-0
  29. Rivard, L., & Straw, S. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U
  30. Rudd, J., Greenbowe, T., & Hand, B. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic to improve students' understanding of general Equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(12), 2007-2011. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p2007
  31. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education; current perspectives and recommendations for future direction. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  32. Sampson, V., Groom. J., & Walker, J. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: an exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
  33. Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  34. Shin, S. Y., Choi, A. R., & Park, J. Y. (2013). The effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the middle school students' achievements. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(5), 952-962. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.952
  35. Shin, J. W., & Choi, A. R. (2014). Trends in research studies on scientific arguments and writing in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0107
  36. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

피인용 문헌

  1. The Process of Group Writing and Processes Factor vol.35, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0585
  2. Analysis of Biology Contents in the Secondary School Teacher’s Certification Examination of 2014-2017: Focus on Core Concepts, Inquiry Skills, Problem Solving Skills and Answer Structure vol.21, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2017.21.4.383