참고문헌 (77)

1. 강태완, 김태용, 이상철, 허경호(2001). 토론의 방법. 서울:커뮤니케이션북스 

2. 김희경, 강태욱, 송진웅(2003). 7차 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교과서 물리단원 실험의 특징. 새물리, 47(6), 387-394 

   상세보기

3. 민병곤(2000). 신문사설의 논증 구조 분석. 국어국문학, 127, 133-154 

   상세보기

4. 민병곤(2001), 논증 이론의 현황과 국어 교육의 과제. 국어교육학연구, 12(1), 237-285 

5. 연세대학교 언어정보개발연구원(2002). 연세 한국어사전. 서울: 두산동아 

6. 이범홍(1998). 토의토론 학습과 중등학교 과학교육. 1997년도 교과교육공동연구 결과 보고서(RR 97-II-6). 서울: 한국학술진흥재단 

7. 이선영(2002). 토론의 논증 구성과 사회적 상호작용에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 석사 학위 논문 

8. 한국물리교육연구센터(1994). 과학 공동탐구 토론대회 보고서. 서울: 관악사 

9. Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1996). Small group discussions in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114 

   상세보기

10. Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussions in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 393-406 

    상세보기

11. Bell, P. & Linn. M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE, International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817 

    상세보기

12. Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Loughran, J. J., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 45(1), 27-31 

13. Boulter, C. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. S. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters 

14. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49 

    상세보기

15. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654 

    상세보기

16. Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218 

    상세보기

17. Collette, A. T. & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill Pub. Co 

18. Cunningham, C. M. & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483-499 

    상세보기

19. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum 

20. Dillon, J. T. (1994). Using discussion in classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press 

21. Driver, R. (1983). The Pupil as Scientist? Milton Keynes: The Open University Press 

22. Driver, R. (1989). The Construction of Scientific Knowledge in School Classrooms. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education (pp. 83-105). NY: The Falmer Press 

23. Driver, R. & Scott, P. H. (1996). Curriculum Development as Research: A Constructivist Approach to Science Curriculum Development and Teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J.Fraser (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp. 83-106). NY: Teachers College Press 

24. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborn, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312 

    상세보기

25. Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679 

    상세보기

26. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanisms of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 

27. Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Boston, MA 

28. Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press 

29. Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science cuniculum. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press 

30. Hackling, M. W. & Fairbrother, R. W. (1996). Helping students to do open investigation in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4), 26-33 

31. Heisenberg, W. (1982). 부분과 전체 (김용준, 역). 서울: 지식산업사. (원저 1969 발행) 

32. Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142 

    상세보기

33. Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work in School Science (pp. 93-108). NY: Routledge 

34. Hodson, D. & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about pratical about practical work: changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683-694 

    상세보기

35. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54 

    상세보기

36. Inch, E. S. & Warnick, B. (2002). Critical thinking and communication: the use of reason in argument. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon 

37. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A. & Duschl, R. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792 

    상세보기

38. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Agroso, M., & Birexas, F. (2004, April). Scientific Authority and Empirical Data in Argument Warrants about the Prestige Oil Spill. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada 

39. Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 

40. Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871 

    상세보기

41. Kelly G. J. & Hilton-Brown, B. (2001, March). Discourse studies of science education: a review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. 

42. Kelly, G. J. & Talmo, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314- 342 

    상세보기

43. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld(Eds.), Emergence of Mathematical Meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

44. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178 

    상세보기

45. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337 

    상세보기

46. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315 

    상세보기

47. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 

48. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex 

49. Lepper, M. R. & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. E. Ames(Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: Goals and Cognitions (VoI.3, pp. 73-105). Orlando, FL: Academic Press 

50. Millar, R. H. (1989). What scientific method and can it be taught? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in Science Education: A critical analysis. London: Routledge 

51. Millar, R. H. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in Science Education is really for. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp 16-31). NY: Routledge 

52. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 

53. Newton, P., Driver, R, & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science, International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576 

    상세보기

54. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525 

    상세보기

55. Pera, M. (1994). The Discourses of Science (C. Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 

56. Rigano, D. L. & Ritchie, S. M. (1995). Student disclosure of fraudulent practice in school laboratories. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 353-363 

    상세보기

57. Roberts, R. and Gatt, R. (2002). Investigations: collecting and using evidence. In D. Sang, and V. Wood-Robinson (Eds.), Teaching secondary scientific enquiry (pp 18-49). London: John Murray 

58. Rogers, E. M. (1948). Science in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general education. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Publishers 

59. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic School Science. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers 

60. Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27-45 

    상세보기

61. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2002, April). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana 

62. Surral, C. S., Sunal, D. W., Tirri, K. (2001, April). Using evidence in scientific reasoning: Exploring characteristics of middle school students' argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA 

63. Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381-405 

    상세보기

64. Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, Science and Learning. Developing Science and Technology Series. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press 

65. Taylor, C. (1996). Deiining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press 

66. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK.: C.U.P. 

67. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 

68. van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a studentgenerated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115-142 

    상세보기

69. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 

70. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. NJ: LEA 

71. Watson, J. R. (2000). The role of practical work. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp.57-71). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press 

72. Watson, J.R., Swain, J.R.L, & McRobbie, C. (2004) Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45 

    상세보기

73. Wellington, J. J. (1998). Practical work in science: time for a reappraisal. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3-15). NY: Routledge 

74. Wellington, J. J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press 

75. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M., K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369 

    상세보기

76. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463 

    상세보기

77. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496 

    상세보기

저자의 다른 논문 :

송진웅 (59)