참고문헌
- Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39-51.
- 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
- Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
- Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
- Colestock, A. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). What teachers notice when they notice student thinking. In A. D. Robertson, R. E., Scherr, D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 126-144). NY: Routledge.
- Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
- 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. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
- Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, (pp. 409-434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding student learning. London: Routledge.
- Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00292
- Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0063
- Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofre, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
- Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfre of learning: Research and perspectives (pp. 88-119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
- Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
- Hand, V., Penuel, W. R., & Gutierrez, K. D. (2012). (Re)framing educational possibility: Attending to power and equity in shaping access to and within learning opportunities. Human Development, 55(5-6), 250-268. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345313
- Hare, A. P. (1981). Group size. American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 695-708. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276428102400507
- Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20373
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erudran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers' ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
- Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Kwon, J. S., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring small group argumentation shown in designing an experiment: Focusing on students' epistemic goals and epistemic considerations for activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
- 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.
- Lee, Y. N., Lee, S. Y., Kim, H. B. (2015). Understanding students' knowledge construction and scientific argumentation according to the level of openness in inquiry and the abstraction level of scientific knowledge. Biology Education, 43(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2015.43.1.50
- Lee, E. J., Yun, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring small group argumentation and epistemological framing of gifted science students as revealed by the analysis of their responses to anomalous data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 419-429. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0419
- Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
- Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20092
- Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6
- Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
- Ministry of Education (MOE) (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
- Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
- Oh, J., & Oh, P. S. (2017). An exploration of the possibility of implementing 'responsive teaching' (RT) in elementary science classrooms. Elementary Science Education, 36(3), 227-245.
- Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.
- Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Erico Fermi summer school, course CLVI (pp. 1-64). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
- Robertson, A. D., Atkins, L. J., Levin, D. M., & Richards, J. (2016). What is responsive teaching? In A. D. Robertson, R. E., Scherr, D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 227-247). NY: Routledge.
- Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
- Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21063
- Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
- Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1995). "This question is just too, too easy!" Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
- Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publication.
- 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
- 소집단 과학 논변 활동에서 초임 교사의 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계 탐색 -프레이밍을 중심으로- vol.39, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.6.739
- 교사학습공동체에 참여한 한 고등학교 교사의 과학적 모델링에 대한 이해 및 수업 실행 변화 탐색 -프레임 분석을 중심으로- vol.40, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.1.29
- 지구과학 예비교사가 설계한 수업내용의 논증구조에 나타난 반박 분석 vol.13, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2020.13.3.238
- 반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.268