분류 과제 속성에 따른 소집단 논변의 추론 양상 차이
Differences in Reasoning Patterns in Small-Group Argumentation Focused on the Features of Classification Task
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this study was to explore how small-group argumentation differs according to the features of the classification task involved. For this purpose, three different tasks (classifying bolts and nuts, animals, and plants) were developed and applied to 7th grade students. Data from students' discourse, individual written work, and in-depth interviews with students were used to characterize differences in small-group argumentation. As a result, reasoning patterns in small-group argumentation were identified which differed according to the features of the task involved. Students showed more elaborated rebuttals and advanced utterances when they were evaluating other groups' classification trees than they did in constructing their own classification tree. Considering the validity of classification criteria made discussions prolonged and lengthened reasoning chains as students were arguing which group's tree was the best. In addition, task topics with which students were familiar and which required less complex knowledge for the classification provided them with opportunities to reason collaboratively. These results imply that task features should be considered when we develop argumentation tasks for promoting small-group discussion and argumentation.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore how small-group argumentation differs according to the features of the classification task involved. For this purpose, three different tasks (classifying bolts and nuts, animals, and plants) were developed and applied to 7th grade students. Data from students' discourse, individual written work, and in-depth interviews with students were used to characterize differences in small-group argumentation. As a result, reasoning patterns in small-group argumentation were identified which differed according to the features of the task involved. Students showed more elaborated rebuttals and advanced utterances when they were evaluating other groups' classification trees than they did in constructing their own classification tree. Considering the validity of classification criteria made discussions prolonged and lengthened reasoning chains as students were arguing which group's tree was the best. In addition, task topics with which students were familiar and which required less complex knowledge for the classification provided them with opportunities to reason collaboratively. These results imply that task features should be considered when we develop argumentation tasks for promoting small-group discussion and argumentation.
참고문헌 (36)
- 권용주, "대학생들의 귀납적 탐구에서 나타난 과학적 사고의 유형과 과정", 한국과학교육학회지, 23(3), pp.286~298 (2003), 한국과학교육학회
- 김운화, "식물 분류 대안개념의 원인에 대한 연구 : 중학생의 사고, 과학 교과서, 과학 교사를 중심으로", 생물교육, 39(3), pp.485~499 (2011), 한국생물교육학회
- 도승이, "협동학습에서 과제와 사회적 요소의 작용:조원 간 친밀한 소집단을 중심으로", 교육심리연구, 21(4), pp.1047~1070 (2007), 한국교육심리학회
- 박정은, "논증 구조 교육을 통한 고등학교 학생들의 과학 글쓰기 분석: 과학 글쓰기 장르에 따른 글쓰기 과제를 중심으로", 한국과학교육학회지, 29(8), pp.824~847 (2009), 한국과학교육학회
- 박지영, "초등 예비교사의 사회 속의 과학 쟁점에 대한 논변에서 나타나는 소집단 상호작용 분석", 생물교육, 39(4), pp.653~673 (2011), 한국생물교육학회
- 배진호, "초등학생의 생물분류 개념 형성에 대한 연구", 과학교육연구, 31, pp.93~103 (2006)
- 윤선미, "소집단의 논변활동을 위한 과학 탐구 과제의 개발과 적용", 한국과학교육학회지, 31(5), pp.694~708 (2011), 한국과학교육학회
- 이경현, "중학생들의 생물분류에 대한 소집단 논변활동의 이해 -리더의 역할을 중심으로-", 생물교육, 40(1), pp.71~86 (2012), 한국생물교육학회
- 이소영, "초등학생의 학년별 생물분류 개념형성에 대한 연구", 생물교육, 32(1), pp.16~26 (2004), 한국생물교육학회
- 이준호, "중학생들의 생물 분류 개념 이해를 위한 활동중심 학습프로그램 개발", 교사교육연구, 49(2), pp.123~150 (2010), 과학교육연구소
- 장지은, "과학 창의성 향상을 위한 고등학교 생물 분류 단원 수업 프로그램의 개발과 적용", 생물교육, 33(4), pp.505~516 (2005), 한국생물교육학회
- 허명, "초․중․고등학교 학생들의 식물 분류에 관한 오개념 빈도와 흥미도 연구", 생물교육, 38(1), pp.1~14 (2010), 한국생물교육학회
- AAAS, "SAPAⅡ" (1990), Delta Education, Inc
- Baines, E., "Improving pupil group work interaction and dialogue in primary classrooms: Results from a year-long intervention study", Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), pp.95~117 (2009)
- Berland, L. K., "Making sense of argumentation and explanation", Science Education, 93(1), pp.26~55 (2009)
- Bowker, G. C., "Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Parts Ⅱ and Ⅲ" (1999), MIT Press
- Brewer, S. D., "A model of desired performance in phylogenetic tree construction for teaching evolution", Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (1997)
- Chin, C., "Students' questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), pp.883~908 (2010)
- Cohen, E. G., "Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups", Review of Educational Research, 64(1), pp.1~35 (1994)
- Core, E. V., "Teaching taxonomy: A different approach", American Biology Teacher, 44(1), pp.547~548 (1982)
- Crawford, B. A., "Elements of a community of learners in a middle school science classroom", Science Education, 83(6), pp.701~723 (1999)
- Driver, R., "Constructivist approaches to science teaching, In Constructivism in Education", pp.385~400 (1995), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Garcia-Mila, M., "Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation, In Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-based Research", pp.29~45 (2008), Springer
- Grindstaff, K., "Learners' perceptions of the role of peers in a research experience: implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), pp.251~271 (2008)
- Hogan, K., "Exploring a process view of students; knowledge about the nature of science", Science Education, 84(1), pp.51~70 (2000)
- Honey, J. N., "The importance of taxonomy in biological education at advance level", Journal of Biological Education, 20(2), pp.103~111 (1986)
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., "Argumentation in science education: An overview, In Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-based Research", pp.3~28 (2008), Springer
- McNeill, K. L., "Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations, In Thinking with Data", pp.233~265 (2007), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- 크라직, "Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning", JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING, 45(1), pp.53~78, JOHN WILEY SONS INC
- Sampson, V., "Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions", Science Education, 92(3), pp.447~472 (2008)
- Sampson, V., "A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups", Research in Science Education, 41(1), pp.63~97 (2011)
- Sandoval, W. A., "Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations", The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), pp.5~51 (2003)
- Sandoval, W. A., "Explanationdriven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry", Science Education, 88(3), pp.345~372 (2004)
- Stamovlasis, D., "A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), pp.556~576 (2006)
- von Aufschnaiter, C., "Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), pp.101~131 (2008)
- Watson, S., "Classification and the dichotomous key: Tools for teaching identification", Science Teacher, 76(3), pp.50~54 (2009)