초등과학 영재의 논증활동에서 사용된 증거의 수준 분석
An Analysis on the Level of Evidence used in Gifted Elementary Students' Debate
0
조회
0
다운로드
28
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of evidence used in gifted elementary students' argumentation. The subjects were 15, 5th and 6th grade students selected in the Science Education Institute for Gifted Youth in K University. After the argumentation task was given to students 2 weeks ago, the students grouped themselves in the affirmative and negative and took part in a debate for 2 hours. Their argumentation process was observed, recorded and transcribed for analysis. Transcribed data was given a Protocol Number according to priority and was examined to find out what were the characteristics when students participated in the task. The evidence used in argumentation was graded from level 1 to level 6 according to Perella's Hierarchy of Evidence and the rate of frequency classified by the level was expressed in graph. Students used Level 1- Level 2 evidence above 50% without for or against task. They had weak argumentation making use of low-level evidence such as individual experience, opinion and another person's experience rather than objective evidences. On the other hand, students commented on the lack of opponent's evidence when they could not trust an opponent's evidence. If one team asked the other to present more evidence but could not, they disregarded the question and turned to another topic. And in cases where the opponent team refuted with evidences of high level, the other team just repeated their claim or evaded the rebuttal. The students tended to complete the argument without the same conclusions with some interruptions. The results show that we need an educational programs including scientific argumentation for science-gifted elementary school students.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of evidence used in gifted elementary students' argumentation. The subjects were 15, 5th and 6th grade students selected in the Science Education Institute for Gifted Youth in K University. After the argumentation task was given to students 2 weeks ago, the students grouped themselves in the affirmative and negative and took part in a debate for 2 hours. Their argumentation process was observed, recorded and transcribed for analysis. Transcribed data was given a Protocol Number according to priority and was examined to find out what were the characteristics when students participated in the task. The evidence used in argumentation was graded from level 1 to level 6 according to Perella's Hierarchy of Evidence and the rate of frequency classified by the level was expressed in graph. Students used Level 1- Level 2 evidence above 50% without for or against task. They had weak argumentation making use of low-level evidence such as individual experience, opinion and another person's experience rather than objective evidences. On the other hand, students commented on the lack of opponent's evidence when they could not trust an opponent's evidence. If one team asked the other to present more evidence but could not, they disregarded the question and turned to another topic. And in cases where the opponent team refuted with evidences of high level, the other team just repeated their claim or evaded the rebuttal. The students tended to complete the argument without the same conclusions with some interruptions. The results show that we need an educational programs including scientific argumentation for science-gifted elementary school students.
참고문헌 (44)
- 강순민, "과학 맥락에서 학생간 논의과정의 발달", 대한화학회지, 48(1), pp.85~93 (2004), 대한화학회
- 초등과학 영재교육의 방향과 과제, "초등과학교육", 2005, 192~201, pp.한국초등과학교육학회
- 박수경, "과학 영재학생의 사고 양식 유형과 학업성취 및 과학 개념과의 관계 분석", 한국과학 교육학회지, 25(2), pp.307~320 (2005)
- 박지영, "과학영재교육프로그램 분석 모형의 고안과 국내의 과학영재를 위한 생물프로그램의 실태 분석", 한국생물교육학회지, 33(1), pp.122~131 (2005), 한국생물교육학회
- 장신호, "과학 대화를 이용하는 수업에서 교사와 학생이 겪는 어려움 및 대화 능력의 변화·발전에 대한 사례 연구", 초등교육연구, 17(1), pp.79~100 (2004), 한국초등교육학회
- 전국과학영재교육센터협의회, "과학영재의 판 별과 선발" (2000), 전국과학영재교육센터협의회
- American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Benchmarks for science for science literacy" (1993), Oxford University Press
- Avraamidou, L., "Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teachers' specialized practices and knowledge", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), pp.965~986 (2005)
- Bandiera, M., "Active", cooperative learning in schools, 2006, pp.40(3), 130~134
- Cunningham, C.M., "Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), pp.483~499 (1998)
- Driver, R., "Young people's images of science. Buckingham" (1996), Open University Press
- Driver, R., "Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom", Science Education, 84(3), pp.287~312 (2000)
- Duschl, R.A., "Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education", Studies in Science Education, 38, pp.39~72 (2002)
- Erduran, S., "TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument patten for Studying Science Discourse", Science Education, pp.915~933 (2004)
- Fuller, S., "Science. Buckingham" (1997), Open University Press
- Jang, S., "Prospective elementary science teachers' ways of coping with subject matter knowledge in their teaching practice", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (2004)
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., "“iDoing the lesson”or “jDoing science”i: Argument in high school genetics", Science Education, 84, pp.757~792 (2000)
- Kelly, G.J., "Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis", International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), pp.849~871 (1998)
- Kelly, G., "Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university students' use of evidence in writing", Science Education, 86, pp.314~342 (2002)
- Kitcher, P., "The child as parent of the scientist", Mind and Language, 3(3), pp.215~228 (1988)
- Krummheuer, G., "The ethnography of argumentation", pp.229~269 (1995), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Kuhn, D., "Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking", Science Education, 77(3), pp.319~337 (1993)
- Latour, B., "Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts" (1986), Princeton University Press
- Lemke, J.L., "Talking science:Language,learning,and values" (1990), Ablex
- National Research Council, "National science education standards" (1996), National Academy Press
- Newton, P., "The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science", International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), pp.553~576 (1999)
- Norris, S.P., "How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy", Science Education, 87, pp.224~240 (2003)
- Osborne, J.F., "Science without literacy: A ship without a sail", Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), pp.203~215 (2002)
- Osborne, J., "Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), pp.994~1020 (2004)
- Park, J., "Students' responses to experimental evidence based on perceptions of causality and availability of evidence", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), pp.57~67 (1997)
- Pera, M., "The discourses of science" (1994), University of Chicago Press
- Perella, J., "The debate method of critical thinking: An introduction to argumentation", pp.1987, Kendall
- Sadiler, T.D., "A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation", Science Education, 90, pp.986~1004 (2006)
- Sandoval, W.A., "The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations", Cognition and Instruction, 23, pp.23~55 (2005)
- Siegel, H., "Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education" (1988), Routledge
- Simon, S., "Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom", International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), pp.235~260 (2006)
- Toulmin, S., "The Uses of Argument" (1958), Cambridge University Press
- Verlinden, J., "Critical thinking and everyday argument" (2005), Thomson & Wardsworth
- Walton, D.N., "What is reasoning? What is an argument", Journal of Philosophy, 87, pp.399~419 (1990)
- Walton, D.N., "Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning" (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Walton, D., "Justification of argumentation schemes", Australian Journal of Logic, (3), pp.1~13 (2005)
- Watson, J.R., "Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries", International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), pp.25~45 (2004)
- Yore, L.D., "Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), pp.338~369 (2004)
- Zeidler, D.L., "The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education" (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers