본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

소집단 논변 활동에서 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍에 미치는 영향 탐색

Exploring Responsive Teaching’s Effect on Students’ Epistemological Framing in Small Group Argumentation

김희백|하희수
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)|2017.02|한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education)|제37권 제1호|pp. 63-75|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0063

0

조회

0

다운로드

23

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

epistemological framingresponsive teachingscientific argumentation반응적 교수인식론적 자원epistemological resource인식론적 프레이밍과학적 논변 활동
주제분류교육학

초록

본 연구는 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 생산적인 과학적 논변 실행에 미치는 영향을 탐색하였다. 중학교 2학년 학생 30명과 교사 1명이본 연구에 참여하였고 자극과 반응 단원의 논변 수업을 진행하였다. 학생들은 측정 활동의 결과를 예상하고, 활동을 통해 결과를 얻고, 그 결과를 설명하기 위한 논변 활동을 진행하였다. 이 활동은 정수리, 척추, 손등 위에서 핸드폰 진동 감지 시간을 측정하는 것이었다. 연구 자들은 수업에 대한 교사의 생각을 알고자 교사 인터뷰를 진행하였고, 각 소집단 활동과 교사 인터뷰를 녹음⋅녹화하였다. 녹음 기록을 전사하여 분석 자료로 활용하였으며, 소집단 논변 활동에서 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍과 교사의 반응적 교수 실행을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 교사는 반응적 지원의 시작점이 될 학생 사고를 이끌어내는 질문과 함께 소집단 실행에 개입하였다. 교사는 논변 수업에 대한 인식과 학생의 사고를 이해하고자 하는 태도에서 생산적 프레이밍을 드러냈으며, 이를 토대로 수업에서 학생들의 사고를 이끌어내며 논의의 활성화를 지원하였다. 그리고 교사는 평가자의 관점을 지양하고 학생의 아이디어에 반응하여 반박 발화를 함으로써 논변 활동의 일원 으로 참여하였다. 교사는 이러한 참여를 통해 소집단 내의 인지적 권위 구조를 변화시켰으며, 학생들에게 논변 활동에서 기대하는 실행의 예시를 보여주어 생산적 프레이밍을 지원하였다. 이러한 교사의 반응적 교수 실행 결과 학생들은 생산적인 과학적 실행을 보였고, 이는 학생들의 변화된 인식론적 프레이밍에서 비롯된 것으로 보인다. 본 연구는 학생이 과학적 논변 활동에서 진정한 과학적 실행에 참여 하도록 생산적 프레이밍을 지원하는 교사의 반응적 교수 전략을 구축 하는 데에 기여할 것으로 기대된다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students’ productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone’s vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students’ epistemological framing and the teacher’s responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students’ thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher’s understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students’ ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students’ ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students’ ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students’ productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers’ responsive teaching strategies to support students’ productive framing in science classrooms.

참고문헌 (57)

  1. Alvarado, C., "Responsiveness among peers leads to productive disciplinary engagement", Paper presented at 2013 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (2013)
  2. Ball, D. L., "With an eye on the mathematical horizon : Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics", The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), pp.373~397 (1993)
  3. Bateson, G., "A theory of play and fantasy", Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, pp.39~51 (1972)
  4. Berland, L. K., "Making sense of argumentation and explanation", Science Education, 93(1), pp.26~55 (2009)
  5. Berland, L. K., "Framing for scientific argumentation", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), pp.68~94 (2012)
  6. Coffey, J. E., "The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), pp.1109~1136 (2011)
  7. Colestock, A. A., "Responsive teaching in science and mathematics", pp.126~144 (2015), Routledge
  8. Colley, C., "Rigor in elementary science students’discourse : The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk", Science Education, 100(6), pp.1009~1038 (2016)
  9. Cornelius, L. l., "Power in the classroom : How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts", Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), pp.467~498 (2004)
  10. diSessa, A., "Towards an epistemology of physics", Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), pp.105~225 (1993)
  11. Driver, R., "Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms", Science Education, 84(3), pp.287~312 (2000)
  12. Duschl, R. A., "Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8" (2007), National Academy Press
  13. Elby, A., "Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice", pp.409~434 (2010), Cambridge University Press
  14. Entwistle, N. J., "Understanding student learning" (1982), Routledge
  15. Erduran, S., "Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research" (2008), Springer
  16. Fennema, E., "A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction", Journal for Research in mathematics Education, 27(4), pp.403~434 (1996)
  17. Ford, M., "Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning", Science Education, 92(3), pp.404~423 (2008)
  18. Gay, G., "Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice" (2000), Teachers College Press
  19. Goffman, E., "Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience" (1974), Harvard University Press
  20. Hammer, D., "Discovery learning and discovery teaching", Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), pp.485~529 (1997)
  21. Hammer, D., "Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing", pp.169~190 (2002), Routledge
  22. Hammer, D., "Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics", Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), pp.53~90 (2003)
  23. Hammer, D., "Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI", pp.279~299 (2004), Italian Physical Society
  24. Hammer, D., "Transfre of learning: Research and perspectives" (2005), Information Age Publishing
  25. Hammer, D., "Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom", Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), pp.51~72 (2012)
  26. Hodson, D., "Philosophic stance of secondary-school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science-some preliminary findings", Interchange, 24(1-2), pp.41~52 (1993)
  27. Hofer, B. K., "Personal epistemology research : Implications for learning and teaching", Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), pp.353~383 (2001)
  28. Hutchison, P., "Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom", Science Education, 94(3), pp.506~524 (2010)
  29. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., ""Doing the lesson"or"doing science" : Argument in high school genetics", Science Education, 84(3), pp.387~312 (2000)
  30. Kang, H., "Supporting preservice science teachers’ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design", Science Education, 99(5), pp.863~895 (2015)
  31. Kolstø, S. D., "Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research", pp.117~136 (2008), Springer
  32. Kuhn, D., "Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking", Science Education, 77(3), pp.319~337 (1993)
  33. Lederman, N. G., "Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, pp.331~359 (1992)
  34. Lee, J., "Understanding of small group students’ productive practice in scientific argumentation focusing on the change of epistemological resources network", Master, pp.2016
  35. Levin, D. M., "Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking", Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), pp.142~154 (2009)
  36. Levin, D., "Learning to attend to the substance of students’ thinking in science", Science Educator, 20(2), pp.1~11 (2011)
  37. Levin, D., "Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science" (2012), National Science Teachers Association
  38. Lidar, M., "Teaching and learning in the science classroom : The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology", Science Education, 90(1), pp.148~163 (2006)
  39. Lineback, J. E., "The redirection : An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking", Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), pp.419~460 (2015)
  40. Louca, L., "Epistemological resources : Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction", Educational Psychologist, 3(1), pp.57~60 (2004)
  41. Maskiewicz, A. C., "Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices : A case study of a responsive teaching environment", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), pp.429~464 (2012)
  42. Maskiewicz, A. C., "Responsive teaching in science and mathematics", pp.105~125 (2015), Routledge
  43. National Research Council, "A framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas" (2012), National Academies Press
  44. Osborne, J., "Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), pp.994~1020 (2004)
  45. Pierson, J. L., "The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning", Doctor, pp.2008
  46. Richards, J., "Exploring what stabilizes teachers’ attention and responsiveness to the substance of students’ scientific thinking in the classroom", Doctor, pp.2013
  47. Richards, J., "Responsive teaching in science and mathematics" (2015), Routledge
  48. Robertson, A. D., "Responsive teaching in science and mathematics" (2015), Routledge
  49. Rosebery, A. S., "Developing interpretive power in science teaching", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), pp.1571~1600 (2015)
  50. Rosenberg, S., "Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle", The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), pp.261~292 (2006)
  51. Sandoval, W. A., "Teachers’ discourse strategies for supporting learning through inquiry", Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (1999)
  52. Schommer, M., "Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension", Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), pp.498~504 (1990)
  53. Stefanou, C. R., "Supporting autonomy in the classroom : Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership", Educational Psychologist, 39(2), pp.97~110 (2004)
  54. Stroupe, D., "Examining classroom science practice communities : How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice", Science Education, 98(3), pp.487~516 (2014)
  55. Tannen, D., "Framing in discourse" (1993), Oxford University Press
  56. Thompson, J., "Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity", Teachers College Record, 118(5) (2015)
  57. Warren, B., "Re-thinking diversity in learning science : The logic of everyday sense-making", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, pp.529~552 (2001)

관련 논문AI추천

소집단 논변 활동 후 전체 논의에서 이루어진 교사의 반응적 교수 실행과 인식론적 프레이밍 탐색김희백, 이영미, 하희수한국과학교육학회 · 한국과학교육학회지2018 · 제38권 제1호소집단 과학 논변 활동에서 초임 교사의 반응적 교수 실행의 특징과 한계 탐색 -프레이밍을 중심으로-김봉준, 김희백한국과학교육학회 · 한국과학교육학회지2019 · 제39권 제6호논변 활동 중심 과학 수업에서 교사의 반응적 교수 실행 탐색 -논변의 구조적⋅대화적 측면을 중심으로-김희백, 박지영한국과학교육학회 · 한국과학교육학회지2018 · 제38권 제1호과학 논변 활동 수업에서 교사의 반응성과 반응성 향상 맥락 탐색김희백, 윤선미한국생물교육학회 · 생물교육2020 · 제48권 제2호소집단 논변활동에 대한 협력적 성찰을 통한 중학생들의 소집단 규범과 논변활동 능력 발달 탐색김희백, 박소현, 이신영한국과학교육학회 · 한국과학교육학회지2016 · 제36권 제6호소집단의 논변활동을 위한 과학 탐구 과제의 개발과 적용김희백, 윤선미한국과학교육학회 · 한국과학교육학회지2011 · 제31권 제5호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (18건)

과학용어에 대한 ‘포털 사전’, ‘표준국어대사전’, ‘과학교과서’ 설명의 비교 분석박윤배, 윤은정pp. 1-8TIMSS 2015 중학교 2학년 지구과학 영역에 대한 우리나라 학생들의 성취 특성 및 교육과정 연계성 탐색곽영순pp. 9-16과학교육에서 발명교육에 관한 과학교육자의 인식 조사심규철, 이봉우, 김희백pp. 17-24귀추적 추론 모형을 적용한 초등 과학 수업의 입자 개념 형성 효과김동현pp. 25-37고등학생이 이온 결합에 대해 생성한 비유의 특징 분석 －학생의 인지적 특성에 따른 비유의 특징 비교－김민환, 김유정, 노태희, 권혁순pp. 39-48
원문 보기