탐구 토론에서 예비과학교사들의 논증 분석
Analysis of Argumentation in the Inquiry Discourse among Pre-service Science Teachers
0
조회
0
다운로드
19
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 연구는 예비교사들이 과학탐구에 대한 비판적 토론을 분석하는 것에 초점을 두고 있다. 약 3개월 동안 24명의 예비교사들은 7개의 그룹으로 나뉘어 개방적 탐구를 수행하였고, 이후 10회의 비판적 토론을 실시하였다. 모든 토론과정은 녹화하여 전사하여 분석되었다. 툴민의 논증분석틀과 인지적 논증분석틀을 이용하여 예비교사들의 탐구토론에 나타난 논증의 특징을 살펴보았다. 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 의미단위별 논증요소 분석에서 주장, 정당한 이유, 자료, 반박, 지원의 순서로 많이 제시되었다. 둘째, 대화단위별 논증 구조에서 CW, CD, CDW, CWR, CR의 순서로 많이 제시되었다. 셋째, 비판적 탐구토론에서는 다른 토론활동보다 반론의 비율이 많이 제시되었다. 넷째, 두 번째 논증활동이 첫 번째 논증활동보다 질적 수준이 향상되었다.
Abstract
The research reported in this study focused on an analysis of argumentation in the inquiry discourse among pre-service science teachers. For about 3 months, 7 groups of 24 pre-service science teachers participated in an open-ended inquiry and performed 10 inquiry discourses. All discourses were collected by video-recording and transcribed. To analyze features of argumentation discourse, analytic tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern and cognitive argumentation scheme were applied to discussion transcripts. The results were as follows: First, the order of frequency in the analysis of ‘meaning unit’ was 'claim-warrant-data-rebuttal-backing.' Second, the order of frequency in the analysis of ‘dialogue unit’ was 'CW-CD-CDW-CWR-CR'. Third, more rebuttals were found than other discussions. Fourth, the second argumentative discussion showed a higher level than the first.
참고문헌 (34)
- 교육인적자원부, "과학과 교육과정" (2007), 교육인적자원부
- 김희경, "중학생의 동료간 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 물리 탐구:조건,특징,역할을 중심으로", 박사, pp.2003
- 양일호, "과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발", 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), pp.203~220 (2009), 한국과학교육학회
- 이봉우, "온라인 물리탐구토론에 나타난 학생들의 상호작용 유형 분석", 한국과학교육학회지, 24(3), pp.638~645 (2004), 한국과학교육학회
- 이봉우, "중학생들의 온라인 물리 탐구토론 내용분석", 새물리, 48(3), pp.216~222 (2004), 한국물리학회
- 이효녕, "학교과학교육에서의 논증활동 활용에 대한 교사들의 인식", 한국과학교육학회지, 29(6), pp.666~679 (2009), 한국과학교육학회
- 조현준, "초등과학 영재의 논증활동에서 사용된 증거의 수준 분석", 한국과학교육학회지, 28(5), pp.495~505 (2008), 한국과학교육학회
- 최재혁, "과학 영재의 국제경진대회 활동에서 창의성의 사회적 측면 분석-국제 청소년 물리 토너먼트 사례를 중심으로-", 초등과학교육, 25(5), pp.582~590 (2007), 한국초등과학교육학회
- 과학 공동탐구 토론대회 보고서, "한국물리교육연구센터", 관악사, ~ (1994)
- AAAS, "Project 2061" (1994), Oxford University Press
- Boulter, C. J., "Argument and science education. in: Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argument", pp.84~98 (1995), Multilingual Matters
- Driver, R., "Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms", Science Education, 84, pp.287~312 (2000)
- Duschl, R. A., "Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms" (1999), Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
- Duschl, R., "Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse", Studies in Science Education, 38, pp.39~72 (2002)
- Erduran, S, "TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse", Science Education, 88, pp.915~933 (2004)
- Heigenberg, W., "Der Teil und das Ganze" (1969), Gespra∙∙che im Umkreis der Atomphysik. Piper
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., "Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management", International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), pp.1171~1190 (2002)
- Kuhn, T. S., "The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed" (1996), The University of Chicago Press
- Leach, J., "Students’understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science", International Journal of Science Education, 21, pp.789~806 (1999)
- Lee, B. W., "Science-gifted students’scientific inquiry change in online argumentative discussion", J. Korea Assoc. Res. Sci. Edu, 25(6), pp.642~649 (2005)
- Lemke, J. L., "Talking science: Language, Learning, and values" (1990), Ablex Publishing Corporation
- Martins, I., "Rhetoric and science education. in: Research in science education-past, present, and future", pp.189~198 (2001), Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Mason, L., "An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions", Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, pp.411~433 (1996)
- Meyer, K., "Consensually driven explanation in science teaching", Science Education, 81(2), pp.173~192 (1997)
- National Research Council, "National science education standards" (1996), National Academy Press
- National Research Council, "Inquiry and the national science education standards" (2000), National Academy Press
- Osborne, J., "Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, pp.994~1020 (2004)
- Richmond, G., "Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), pp.839~858 (1996)
- Simon, S., "Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom", International Journal of Science Education, 28, pp.235~260 (2006)
- Toulmin, S. E., "The uses of argument" (1958), Cambridge University Press
- van Aufschnaiter, C., "Auguing to learn and learning to augue: case studies of how sutdents’augumentation relates to their scientific knowledge", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), pp.101~131 (2008)
- Walton, D. N., "Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning" (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Welch, W. W., "Project synthesis", What research says, 3 (1981), NSTA
- Zohar, A., "Fostering students’knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, pp.35~62 (2002)