최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.35 no.3, 2015년, pp.509 - 521
Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distincti...
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
논증활동이란? | 논증활동(argumentation)이란 여러 가지 근거를 기반으로 주장을 제시함으로써 자신의 입장을 정당화하는 과정 및 결과물을 일컫는다(Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran 2007; Walton, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). 즉, 논증활동은 개인이 다양한 근거를 바탕으로 자신의 관점을 명확하게 해나가는 과정과, 타인과의 의사소통을 통하여 비판적으로 생각하고 정당화하는 과정 모두를 포함한다(Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007; Park & Kim,2012). | |
논증활동은 어떤 과정을 포함하는가? | 논증활동(argumentation)이란 여러 가지 근거를 기반으로 주장을 제시함으로써 자신의 입장을 정당화하는 과정 및 결과물을 일컫는다(Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran 2007; Walton, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). 즉, 논증활동은 개인이 다양한 근거를 바탕으로 자신의 관점을 명확하게 해나가는 과정과, 타인과의 의사소통을 통하여 비판적으로 생각하고 정당화하는 과정 모두를 포함한다(Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007; Park & Kim,2012). 과학교육분야에서 진행되어 온 논증활동을 주제와 성격에 따라 구분하면 크게 과학적 탐구맥락에서의 이론적 논증활동과 과학관련 사회적 쟁점(SSI)을 포함한 실생활 맥락에서의 논증활동으로 나눌 수 있다(Maeng, Park, & Kim, 2013; Nussbaum, Sinatra, & Owens, 2012). | |
SSI 맥락에서의 논증활동이 지니고 있는 독특한 특성은 무엇인가? | 이는 SSI 맥락에서의 논증활동이 지니고 있는 독특한 특성 때문이라고 할 수 있다. 첫째,SSI는 과학을 넘어 정치, 사회, 경제, 환경 등의 여러 영역과 복잡하게 연결되어 있는 간학문적 성격을 띤다(Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). 따라서 정답을 찾는 하나의 방법이 존재하기 보다는 다양한 관점에서의 접근이 가능하며, 문제와 관련된 여러 이해관계자(stakeholders) 간에 논쟁이 벌어질 수 있다. 둘째, SSI에 대한 가치판단이나 의사결정과정에 과학적 근거 이외에 개인의 가치관, 경험 및 감정, 또는 사회에서 암묵적으로 합의된 윤리·도덕적 지침 등이 자연스럽게 적용되며, 때로는 이러한 요소들이 과학지식보다 오히려 더 큰 영향을 주기도 한다(Chang & Lee, 2010; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). 이러한 특성 때문에 Sadler, Barab, & Scott(2007)은 SSI 의사결정과정을 비형식적 추론(informal reasoning)이라고 칭하였다. |
Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
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.
Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students' decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of the Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students' online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267-287.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J.. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). The Netherlands: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Evagorou, M. (2011). Discussing a socioscientific issue in a primary school classroom: The case of using a technology-supported environment in formal and nonformal settings. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 133-159). The Netherlands: Springer.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 3-27). The Netherlands: Springer.
Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926.
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of preservice science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953.
Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.
Nussbuam, E. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443-488.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation (pp. 17-37). The Netherlands: Springer.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Rest, J. R., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 167-192). The Netherlands: Springer.
Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341-363.
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. A., Krabbe, E. C. W., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745-777.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
*원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다.
Free Access. 출판사/학술단체 등이 허락한 무료 공개 사이트를 통해 자유로운 이용이 가능한 논문
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.