[논문]소집단 논변 활동에서 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍에 미치는 영향 탐색

하희수; 김희백

doi:10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0063

소집단 논변 활동에서 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍에 미치는 영향 탐색
Exploring Responsive Teaching's Effect on Students' Epistemological Framing in Small Group Argumentation 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.37 no.1, 2017년, pp.63 - 75

초록
AI-Helper

본 연구는 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 생산적인 과학적 논변 실행에 미치는 영향을 탐색하였다. 중학교 2학년 학생 30명과 교사 1명이 본 연구에 참여하였고 자극과 반응 단원의 논변 수업을 진행하였다. 학생들은 측정 활동의 결과를 예상하고, 활동을 통해 결과를 얻고, 그 결과를 설명하기 위한 논변 활동을 진행하였다. 이 활동은 정수리, 척추, 손등 위에서 핸드폰 진동 감지 시간을 측정하는 것이었다. 연구자들은 수업에 대한 교사의 생각을 알고자 교사 인터뷰를 진행하였고, 각 소집단 활동과 교사 인터뷰를 녹음 녹화하였다. 녹음 기록을 전사하여 분석 자료로 활용하였으며, 소집단 논변 활동에서 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍과 교사의 반응적 교수 실행을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 교사는 반응적 지원의 시작점이 될 학생 사고를 이끌어내는 질문과 함께 소집단 실행에 개입하였다. 교사는 논변 수업에 대한 인식과 학생의 사고를 이해하고자 하는 태도에서 생산적 프레이밍을 드러냈으며, 이를 토대로 수업에서 학생들의 사고를 이끌어내며 논의의 활성화를 지원하였다. 그리고 교사는 평가자의 관점을 지양하고 학생의 아이디어에 반응하여 반박 발화를 함으로써 논변 활동의 일원으로 참여하였다. 교사는 이러한 참여를 통해 소집단 내의 인지적 권위 구조를 변화시켰으며, 학생들에게 논변 활동에서 기대하는 실행의 예시를 보여주어 생산적 프레이밍을 지원하였다. 이러한 교사의 반응적 교수 실행 결과 학생들은 생산적인 과학적 실행을 보였고, 이는 학생들의 변화된 인식론적 프레이밍에서 비롯된 것으로 보인다. 본 연구는 학생이 과학적 논변 활동에서 진정한 과학적 실행에 참여하도록 생산적 프레이밍을 지원하는 교사의 반응적 교수 전략을 구축하는 데에 기여할 것으로 기대된다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students' productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone's vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students' epistemological framing and the teacher's responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students' thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher's understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students' ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students' ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students' ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students' productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies to support students' productive framing in science classrooms.

주제어

질의응답

핵심어	질문	논문에서 추출한 답변
	과학에서의 논변 활동은 무엇인가?	과학에서의 논변 활동은 과학자들이 과학적 주장의 타당성을 논하는 과정으로, 과학적 실행의 핵심이다(Kolstø & Ratcliffe, 2008). 과학은 축적된 지식뿐만 아니라 과학 공동체가 지식을 구성하는 사회적 과정 또한 포함한다는 인식이 등장함(Lederman, 1992)에 따라, 학생이 과학을 인식하는 데에 주된 영향을 미치는 학교 현장(Hodson, 1993)에서 과학 지식과 함께 과학 지식의 구성 과정도 다루어야 함이 지속적으로 강조되었다(Driver et al.
	논변 활동을 과학 수업에 도입하는 것은 무엇에 효과적인가?	, 2007; National Research Council, 2012). 논변 활동을 과학 수업에 도입하는 것은 학생들이 과학 지식의 구성 과정을 올바르게 이해하고 자연 현상에 대한 지식 주장을 구성하는 과학 공동체의 문화를 익히도록 지원하는 데에 효과적이다(Driver et al., 2000; Duschl et al.
	Elby(2002)는 인식론적 자원 관점을 제시하였는데, 이 관점은 언제 유용하게 활용되는가?	, 2012). 이러한 인식론적 자원 관점은 학생의 실행으로부터 인식론적 프레이밍을 유추할 때 유용하게 활용된다. 학생은 과거의 유사한 경험을 바탕으로 현재 상황을 프레이밍하며, 프레이밍에 따라 서로 다른 인식론적 자원을 활성화하여 활동에 참여한다(Elby & Hammer, 2010; Hammer et al.

참고문헌 (57)

Alvarado, C., Daane, A. R., Scherr, R. E., & Zavala, G. (2013). Responsiveness among peers leads to productive disciplinary engagement. Paper presented at 2013 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, Portland, OR. doi: 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.002
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.

상세보기
Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39-51.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.

상세보기
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.

상세보기
Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136.

상세보기
Colestock, A. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). What teachers notice when they notice student thinking. In A. D. Robertson, R. E., Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, (pp. 126-144). New York, NY: Routledge.
Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students’ discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education. 100(6), 1009-1038.

상세보기
Cornelius, L. l., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498.

상세보기
diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.

상세보기
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

상세보기
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. E. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding student learning. London: Routledge.
Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.

상세보기
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.

상세보기
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485-529.

상세보기
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: Routledge.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90.

상세보기
Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 1: Case studies of children's inquiries. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 279-299). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfre of learning: Research and perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary-school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children's understanding of science-some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1-2), 41-52.

상세보기
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383.

상세보기
Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 387-312.
Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers' ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895.

상세보기
Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.

상세보기
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.

상세보기
Lee, J. (2016). Understanding of small group students' productive practice in scientific argumentation focusing on the change of epistemological resources network(Master's thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.

상세보기
Levin, D., & Richards, J. (2011). Learning to attend to the substance of students' thinking in science. Science Educator, 20(2), 1-11.

상세보기
Levin, D., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148-163.

상세보기
Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460.

상세보기
Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 3(1), 57-60.
Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464.

상세보기
Maskiewicz, A. C. (2015). Navigating the challenges of teaching responsively. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Shcerr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, (pp. 105-125). New York, NY: Routledge.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
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.

상세보기
Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.
Richards, J. (2013). Exploring what stabilizes teachers' attention and responsiveness to the substance of students' scientific thinking in the classroom(Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland. Maryland, MD.
Richards, J., & Robertson, A. D. (2015). A review of the research on responsive teaching in science and mathematics. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (Eds.) (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2015). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10) 1571-1600.
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.

상세보기
Sandoval, W. A., Daniszewski, K., Spillane, J. P., & Reiser, B. J. (1999). Teachers' discourse strategies for supporting learning through inquiry. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.

상세보기
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.

상세보기
Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516.

상세보기
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Windschitl, M., & Colley, C. (2015). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5).
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Re-thinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529-552.

상세보기

저자의 다른 논문 :

LOADING...

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증