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.36 no.3, 2016년, pp.471 - 483
The purpose of this study is to explore how students' epistemological framing and positional framing affect the role of wonderment questions related to the activation of conceptual resources and to investigate what contexts affect students' framings during scientific model construction. Four student...
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
개념에 대한 단일적 관점의 문제는 무엇인가? | , 2005; Oh, 2015). 개념에 대한 단일적 관점은 학생들이 갖고 있는 오개념을 과학적 개념으로 대체되어야 할 학습의 방해 요소로 여기고, 맥락에 따라 학생들이 다른 개념을 갖고 있는 것처럼 보이는 현상을 설명하지 못한다는 한계점을 안고 있다(diSessa, 1993; Hammer, 1996; Hammer & Elby, 2002; Hammer et al., 2005). | |
현상학적 기초 요소에 대한 예는 무엇인가? | 이에 따라 diSessa(1993)는 지식을 구성하는 세분화된 요소로 ‘현상학적 기초 요소(Phenomenological primitives, p-prims)’를 제안했다. 예를 들어, 그는 ‘움직임에는 힘이 필요하다.’는 오개념을 ‘지속성(maintaining agency)’과 ‘작동성(actuating agency)’ 등의 p-prims로 세분화하였다. 학생들은 이러한 p-prims를 모두 갖고 있고, 맥락에 따라 적절하게 또는 부적절하게 활성화시켜 과학적 개념을 형성할 수 있다. Hammer & Elby(2002)는 diSessa의 p-prims 아이디어를 더욱 발전시켜 ‘자원(resources)’이라는 용어를 사용하여 개념적 측면뿐만 아니라 인식론적 측면에서의 학습을 설명하였다. | |
담화 분석을 통해 무엇을 분석하였는가? | 모형 구성 과정에서 다양한 사고 질문이 나타나며, 맥락에 따라 프레이밍이 변한 1개의 소집단을 초점집단으로 선정하였다. 담화 분석을 통해 모형 구성 과정에서 나타나는 학생들의 사고 질문과 개념적 자원의 활성화를 확인하였고, 그들의 인식론적 프레이밍과 위치 짓기 프레이밍을 추론하여 이에 영향을 미친 맥락들을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 소집단 내에서 모형 구성 활동을 '현상 이해'로, 자신의 위치를 '촉진자'로 프레이밍 한 학생이 사고 질문으로 개념적 자원의 활성화를 촉진했지만, '교실 게임'과 '비응답자'로 프레이밍 한 다른 학생들에 의해 상호 작용이 단절되어 개념적 자원이 활성화되지 못하였다. |
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2015). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.21257
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of research in science teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.
Clement, J. J. (2008). Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models in large group discussion. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 11-22). Springer Netherlands.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, (pp. 409-434). Cambridge University Press.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding Student Learning, London: Croom Helms: NY: Nichols Publishing Co.
Gilbert, J. K., Pietrocola, M., Zylbersztajn, A., & Franco, C. (2000). Science and education: Notions of reality, theory and model. In J. K. Gilbert and C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 19-40). Springer Netherlands.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. NY: Harper & Row.
Greeno, J. G. (2009). A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to Son and Goldstone. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 269-275.
Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1316-1325.
Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 3: manifold cognitive resources. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 321-340). Bologna: Italian Physical Society
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp.89-120). Greenwich, CT: information Age Publishing.
Harre, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.), (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of international action. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68.
MacLachlan, G., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing and interpretation. Portland, OR: Melboume University Press.
Maskill, R., & de Jesus, H. P. (1997). Pupils' questions, alternative frameworks and the design of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 781-799.
Oh (2015). A Theoretical Review and Trial Application of the 'Resources-Based View' (RBV) as an Alternative Cognitive Theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 973-986.
Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-Based Inquiry and School Science: Creating Connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394-402.
Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, D Hymes, & V. John (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2010). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642.
Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Clement, J., & Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2008). An instructional model derived from model construction and criticism theory. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 23-43). Springer Netherlands.
Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 1-63). Italian Physical Society: Italy.
Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge based questioning by children. Cognition and instruction, 9(3), 177-199.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. NY: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp.57-76). New York: Oxford University Press.
van de Sande, C. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problem-solving discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 1-44.
*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.