한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제35권4호
  • /
  • Pages.691-707
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

교사들의 진화 개념 이해 향상을 위한 논변활동 프로그램 효과 분석

Analyzing the Effect of Argumentation Program for Improving Teachers' Conceptions of Evolution

  • 투고 : 2015.07.21
  • 심사 : 2015.08.20
  • 발행 : 2015.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 생명과학교사들의 진화개념 향상을 위한 논변활동 프로그램을 개발하고 이를 교사교육에 적용하여 진화개념에 대한 논변활동 특성을 분석함으로써 효과를 알아보고자 하는 것이었다. 이를 위해 먼저 진화를 이해하는데 필요한 주요 개념들을 문헌 조사를 통해 추출하여 '변이', '변이의 유전', '경쟁', '자연선택과 적응', '차등적 생식력', '개체군 내 개체분포의 변화', '대진화'를 주요개념으로 선정하였고, 각각의 개념에 대한 논변활동 질문지를 개발하였다. ADI모형을 변형한 7단계로 이루어진 순환적 논변활동 학습모형도 개발하였다. 총 7회에 대학원 교과교육 수업에 적용하였다. 현직 생명과학교사 4명과 예비 생명과학교사 2명을 대상으로 남, 여 3명씩 두 개의 소집단으로 구성하여 논변활동을 진행하였다. 프로그램이 진행되는 동안 녹음을 통한 담화와 논변글쓰기의 자료를 수집하여 분석하였다. 논변글쓰기는 '설명의 충분성', '설명의 개념적 수준', '증거의 수준', '정당화의 적절성'의 4가지 범주를 기준으로 논변의 질 수준을 분석하여 사전사후에 진화개념의 변화 정도를 확인하였고, 담화분석을 통해 진화주요개념에 대한 논변활동 특성을 분석하였다. 논변글쓰기와 담화를 분석한 결과 개발된 논변활동 모형과 프로그램은 생명과학교사들의 진화개념 이해 향상에 효과적이었다. 이 연구는 논변활동을 통한 교수학습 전략이 생명과학교사교육을 위한 효과적인 진화개념학습 전략이될 수 있음을 보여주었다.

This study aims to develop biology teachers' education program based on argumentation activity about core concepts of evolution and to analyze the characteristics of core concepts of evolution learned during the program. The eight core concepts of evolution in this study were variation, heritability of variation, competition, natural selection, adaptation, differential reproductive rate of individuals, changes in genetic pool within a population, and macroevolution. The performances of teachers participating in the program were compared before and after argumentation activities; consisting of seven sessions on the eight core concepts of evolution. The process of the program was specially designed by learning cycle model for teacher education, consisting of seven phases: identification of the task, production of a tentative argument, small group's written argument, share arguments with the other groups, reflective discussion, final written argument, and organization by an instructor. Participants in the study were two pre-service biology teachers and four in-service biology teachers. The results suggest that biology teachers reduced the teleological explanation for biological evolution and improve its adequacy after the intervention. Teachers lacked the opportunity to discuss variation, heritability of variation, competition, and macroevolution because science textbooks lack information on the concepts of biological evolution. The results of this study suggest that because the argumentation program developed for teachers helps to improve understanding the concepts of evolution and to reduce inadequate conceptions in biology, teacher education programs using argumentation activity and eight core concepts of evolution will play a role for efficient evolution education for biology teachers.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science). (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS/National Science Teachers Association.
  3. Alters, B. J., & Alters, S. M. (2001). Defending evolution: A guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
  4. Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56(10), 1891-1901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00115.x
  5. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10053
  6. Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2006). On Developing content-oriented theories taking biological evolution as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 673-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498385
  7. Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626-639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
  8. Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaboration and individual outcomes of high achieving sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 391-398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.391
  9. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
  10. Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802713507
  11. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A Learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  12. Brumby, M. N. (1981). The use of problem-solving in meaningful learning in biology. Research in Science Education, 11(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356773
  13. Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (Volume II), (pp. 357-387). New York, NY: MacMillan.
  14. Catley, K. M. (2006). Darwin's missing link-a novel paradigm for evolution education. Science Education, 90(5), 767-783. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20152
  15. Chi, M. T. H., Kristensen, K., & Roscoe, R. (2012). Misunderstanding emergent causal mechanisms in natural selection. In K. S. Rosengren, E. M. Evans, S. Brem, & G. M. Sinatra, (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution(pp. 145-173). New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Chung, W., & Cha, H. (1994). High school students' misconceptions on genetics and evolution. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 14(2), 170-183.
  17. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
  18. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35(3), 125-129. https://doi.org/10.2307/4444260
  19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  20. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  21. Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research(pp.159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
  22. 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
  23. Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1998) The nature of naive explanations of natural selection, International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1231-1256. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201005
  24. Ha, M., & Cha, H. (2007). A Qualitative cross-sectional study on explanation about evolution mechanism. The Korean Journal of Biology Education. 35(1), 106-116.
  25. Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science Education, 97(5), 723-744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21072
  26. Hogan, K., & Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
  27. 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
  28. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (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
  29. Jo, J. (2014). Pre-service biology teachers' perspectives about biological meanings of competition and adaptation. Master's Thesis. Graduate School of Korea National University of Education.
  30. Jung, J., & Kim, H. B. (2010). Influence of ACESE on high school students' argumentative structure and evolutionary conception. Biology Education. 38(1), 168-183. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2010.38.1.168
  31. Kang, N., & Lee, E. (2013). Argument and argumentation: A Review of literature for clarification of translated words. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 33(6), 1119-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.6.1119
  32. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The Exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 24(6), 1216-1234.
  33. Kim, J., & Cha, H. (2014). Association Analysis of Variables Affected for Macroevolution Conceptions of In-service and Pre-service Biology Teachers. Biology Education. 42(4), 428-438. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.4.428
  34. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
  35. Kwon, M. (2013). Development and application of immunity concept instruction program utilizing student generated role-playing analogy: Focused on 'defense action' chapter in life science. Graduate School Of Korea National Education.
  36. Kwon, J., Kim, B., Kang, N., Choi, B., Kim, H., Paik., S., Yang, I., Kwon, Y., Cha, H., Woo, J., & Chung, J. (2012). Theories in science education. Seoul: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
  37. Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052117
  38. Lee, H., Cho, H., & Sohn, J. (2009). The Teachers' view on using argumentation in school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 29(6), 666-679.
  39. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  40. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
  41. Min, B. (2000). Argument structure analysis of newspaper editorials. Korean Language and Literature, 127, 133-154.
  42. MOEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology) (2011). 2009 Revised Science Curriculum, Seoul Republic of Korea: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
  43. Nadelson, L. S., & Southerland, S. A. (2009) Development and preliminary evaluation of the measure of understanding of macroevolution: introducing the MUM, The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(2), 151-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292983
  44. NRC(National Research Council) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  45. NRC(National Research Council) (2011). A framework for K-12 science education; Practice, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
  46. NRC(National Research Council) (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  47. Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools?. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 699-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9062-7
  48. Nelson, C. E. (2008). Teaching evolution(and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icn027
  49. Ohlsson, S., & Bee, N. V. (1992). The effect of expository text on students' explanations of biological evolution. OERI Report. University of Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center.
  50. Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 744-777. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21028
  51. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  52. Park, J. (2013). Comparative study on the content elements and explanation way of evolution presented in science textbooks of Korea and the US. Biology Education. 41(3), 406-420. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.3.406
  53. Park, J., Lee, M., & Lee, K. (2003). The effects of activity-centered instruction on understanding of natural selection concept. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 23(5), 505-516.
  54. Park, J. (2007). An Investigation into the relationship among cognitive presence, sef-Efficacy, participation, satisfaction, and achievement in an e-Learning environment. Department of Educational Technology The Graduate School of Ewha Womans University.
  55. Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Jackson, R. B. (2011). Campbell Biology, 9th Eds. Pearson Education, Inc.
  56. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  57. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008). The Impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
  58. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). A Comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 63-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9
  59. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2010). 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
  60. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  61. Shin, J., & Choi, A. (2014). Trends in research studies on scientific argument and writing in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 34(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0107
  62. Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001
  63. Smith, M. U. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Pedagogical Issues. Science & Education, 19(6-8), 539-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9216-4
  64. Tavares, M. L., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19(6-8), 573-598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9206-6
  65. The National Institute of The Korean Language (2014). The Korean Standard Dictionary. Cited in Dec. 3, 2014, http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/search/List_dic.jsp.
  66. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of the argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  67. Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3
  68. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Policy Information Center.

피인용 문헌

  1. The Comparative Analysis of Evolution Conceptions in Pre- and In-Service Biology Teachers vol.44, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2016.44.2.277
  2. 초등과학영재들의 자연선택 개념 형성을 위한 논변활동 효과 분석 vol.36, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0591
  3. 중국, 미국, 독일의 생물전공자와 비교한 한국 생물예비교사의 자연선택개념 이해 수준 분석 vol.36, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.5.0729
  4. 우리나라 중학생들의 TIMSS 2015 생명과학 영역 성취 특성 분석 vol.45, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.3.390
  5. 중학교 '진화' 단원 디지털 교재 개발 및 적용 vol.39, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.89
  6. Recalibrating the evolution versus creationism debate for student learning: towards students’ evaluation of evidence in an argumentation task vol.43, pp.18, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2004330