Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Issues and Effects in Developing Inquiry-Based Argumentation Task for Science Teachers: A Case of Charles' Law Experiment

탐구 실험을 활용한 과학교사 논변 과제 개발과정에서 드러난 쟁점 및 수정 효과: 기체에 대한 샤를의 법칙 실험 사례

  • Received : 2013.12.18
  • Accepted : 2014.03.18
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop an inquiry-based argumentation task for use in science teachers' professional development by providing them with the substantial experience of argumentation. To do so, the study has developed an argumentation task by utilizing the experiment on the Charles' Law of gas and revised by applying to eight teachers three times. We have revised the questions by analyzing three issues that have been revealed throughout this process in ways that facilitated teachers' argumentation. The effects of revision have been confirmed by the improvements in teachers' argumentation pattern. Three issues have been identified in developing argumentation tasks for science teachers' professional development and they are as follows: determining the openness of the structure of a question, achieving cognitive conflict and convergence of opinions at the same time, and ways of utilizing various evidence. As the task has been revised in ways that enabled scientific approach to the inquiry topic and facilitated the convergence of various opinions, the participants' argumentation patterns have improved both quantitatively and qualitatively. Meanwhile, the inclusion of an actual experiment has not influence their argumentation, while the observation of experimental data has been used as the core evidence according to the character of the problem. Based on the study's result, we suggest practical implications for developing argumentation tasks for science teachers in more varying contexts.

본 연구의 목적은 과학교사의 논변 수업 전문성 증진을 위해 실질적인 논변활동의 경험을 제공할 수 있는 탐구기반 논변과제를 개발하는데 있다. 이를 위해 샤를의 법칙과 관련된 탐구 실험을 활용하여 논변과제를 개발하였고, 3차에 걸쳐 총 8명의 참여자들을 대상으로 논변활동을 적용하였다. 적용과정에서 드러난 쟁점들을 분석하여 논변활동이 촉진될 수 있는 방향으로 문항을 수정하였고, 이러한 수정의 효과는 참여자 논변 양상의 변화를 통해 확인하였다. 본 연구의 교사 전문성 신장을 위한 논변 과제 개발에서 나타난 세 가지 쟁점은 논변 주제의 구조화, 인지 갈등 유발과 의견 수렴의 연계, 다양한 증거의 활용과 활용 방법 결정이다. 논변 주제를 과학적인 접근을 할 수 있는 형태의 문항으로 구성하고, 의견 수렴을 위한 전략을 사용한 결과 논변 구조가 질적, 양적으로 발전했으며, 논변 양상도 복잡하게 나타났다. 실험 활동의 사용 여부는 논변 양상에는 큰 영향이 없었으나, 문항의 특성에 따라 실험 결과의 관찰이 논의의 가장 핵심적 근거로 사용됨을 확인하였다. 앞으로 과학교사에게 논변 활동의 경험을 갖게 하는 보다 다양한 프로그램이 개발될 필요가 있으며, 본 연구의 결과는 이러한 프로그램 개발에 실질적인 시사점을 줄 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Thomas, L., Seibert, D., & Tron, M. (2003). Online process scaffolding and students' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. A paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  2. Bransky, J., Hadass, R., & Lubezky, A. (1992). Reasoning fallacies in preservice elementary school teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10(1), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514920100107
  3. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  4. 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
  5. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: Springer.
  6. 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(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  7. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munaz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change while working on a real environment problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijklhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 419-431). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  8. Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
  9. Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290642
  10. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234.
  11. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  12. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Lee, H., Cho, H., & Sohn, J. (2009). The teachers' view on using argumentation in school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(6), 666-679.
  15. Lee, S.-K., Lee, G., Choi, C. I., & Shin, M.-K. (2012). Analyzing coordination of theory and evidence presented in pre-service elementary teachers' science writing for inquiry activity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(2), 201-209.
  16. Maeng, S., Park, Y.-S., & Kim, C.-J. (2013). Methodological review of the research on argumentative discourse focused on analyzing collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 840-862. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.840
  17. McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers' Pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972.
  18. Millar, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public understanding of science, 7(3), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
  19. National Research Council(NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national standards in science education. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  20. Nersessian, N. (1995). Should physicists preach whet they practice? Science and Education, 4(3), 203-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486621
  21. 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
  22. Park, J., Chang, B., Yoon, H., & Pak, S. J. (1993). Middle school student's evidence evaluation about light and shadow. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 13(2), 135-145.
  23. Park, Y.-S. (2006). Claim-evidence approach for the opportunity of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(5), 620-636.
  24. Park, Y.-S. (2008). Analyzing science teachers' understanding about scientific argumentation in terms of scientific inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(3), 211-226.
  25. Park, Y.-S. (2010). Exploring scientific argumentation from teacher-student interaction with epistemological and psychological perspectives. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 31(1), 106-117. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2010.31.1.106
  26. Sadler, T. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
  27. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
  28. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  29. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
  30. Shin, H.-S., & Kim, H.-J. (2011). The gifted students' view on argumentation and the aspects of the argumentation in problem-solving type experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(4), 567-586.
  31. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (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
  32. Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701854873
  33. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4421-z
  35. Watson, J., Swain, J., & Mcrobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072764
  36. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
  37. Yoo, J., Kim, H. B., Cho, Y., Hwang, S., Park, J. Y., Ohno, E., Asakawa, K., Lee, D. W., & Lim, E. H. (2012). Design-based research for teacher professional development program on scientific argumentation. Paper presented at the World Conference on Physics Education.
  38. Yun, S.-M., & Kim, H.-B. (2011). Development and application of the scientific inquiry task for small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 694-708.
  39. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022411822951

Cited by

  1. An Investigation on Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Difficulties in Practice of Inquiry-based Experiment vol.59, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.5.434
  2. 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