[논문]초등학생들의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 과학적 추론의 학년별 차이

임옥기; 김효남

doi:10.14697/jkase.2018.38.6.839

초등학생들의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 과학적 추론의 학년별 차이
Scientific Reasoning Differences in Science Writing of Elementary School Students by Grades 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.38 no.6, 2018년, pp.839 - 851

초록
AI-Helper

이 연구의 목적은 초등학생들의 과학 글쓰기에 나타나는 과학적 추론의 학년별 차이를 분석하는 것이다. 이를 위해 과학 글쓰기 활동지와 분석틀을 개발하였다. 국가수준의 성취도 평가 중상위 수준의 서울 지역의 한 초등학교 3학년부터 6학년 학생들에게 개발한 과학글쓰기활동을 하도록 하여, 총 320명의 과학 글쓰기 자료를 수집하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 3학년 학생들의 글 중 52%, 4학년 학생들의 글 중 68%, 5학년 학생들의 글 중 85%, 그리고 6학년 학생들의 글 중 89%가 과학적 추론을 포함하고 있었다. 초등학생들이 쓴 과학 글에는 귀납적 추론, 연역적 추론, 귀추적 추론과 같은 세 가지 유형의 과학적 추론이 포함되어 있었다. 귀추적 추론이 나타난 글은 귀납적 추론이나 연역적 추론에 비해 상대적으로 매우 적었다. 그리고 과학적 추론 수준에서는 각 과학적 추론 유형별로 3 수준의 글이 가장 많았다. 귀납적 추론과 연역적 추론에서는 학년이 올라감에 따라 점점 높은 수준의 글을 썼으나, 귀추적 추론에서는 그러한 경향이 나타나지 않았다. 학년별로 귀납적 추론, 연역적 추론, 귀추적 추론에 의한 글이 모두 나타났다. 귀납적 추론과 연역적 추론 수준은 통계적으로 유의한 학년별 차이를 나타내었다. 그러나 귀추적 추론 수준은 통계적으로 유의한 학년별 차이를 나타내지 않았다. 3학년의 귀납적 추론과 연역적 추론 수준은 다른 학년과 비교하여 많이 낮은 편이었다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The purpose of this study is to analyze the science reasoning differences of elementary school students' science writing. For this purpose, science writing activities and analysis frameworks were developed. Science writing data were collected and analyzed. Third to sixth grade elementary students were selected from a middle high level elementary school in terms of a national achievement test in Seoul. A total of 320 writing materials were analyzed. The results of the analysis were as follows. Science writings show science reasoning at 52 % for $3^{rd}$ grade, 68% for $4^{th}$ grade, 85% for $5^{th}$ grade, and 89% for $6^{th}$ grade. Three types of scientific reasoning such as inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning appeared in science writing of the third to sixth graders. The abductive reasoning appeared very low in comparing with inductive and deductive reasoning. Level three appeared the most frequently in the science writing of the elementary students. The levels of inductive and deductive reasoning in science writing increased according to increasing grade and showed statistical differences between grades. But the levels of abductive reasoning did not show an increasing aspect according to increasing grade and also did not show statistical differences between grades. The levels of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning of the 3rd grade was very low in comparing with the other grades.

주제어

표/그림 (19)

그림 Figure 1. Procedure of developing science writing activity
표 Table 1. Information of participants
표 Table 2. Operational definition of scientific reasoning types
표 Table 3. Operational definition of subcategories by scientific reasoning types
표 Table 4. Performance levels by scientific reasoning types
그림 Figure 2. Level 5 of inductive reasoning(Lim & Kim, 2018)
그림 Figure 3. Level 5 of deductive reasoning(Lim & Kim, 2018)
그림 Figure 4. Level 5 of abductive reasoning(Lim & Kim, 2018)
표 Table 5. Ratio of elementary school students' scientific reasoning
표 Table 6. Differences by grades of scientific reasoning ratio
그림 Figure 5. Scientific reasoning levels by scientific reasoning types
표 Table 7. Scientific reasoning types by grades
표 Table 8. Scientific reasoning levels by grades
그림 Figure 6. Differences of Inductive reasoning levels by grades
표 Table 9. Inductive reasoning level differences by grades
표 Table 10. Deductive reasoning level differences by grades
그림 Figure 7. Differences of deductive reasoning levels by grades
그림 Figure 8. Differences of abductive reasoning levels by grades
표 Table 11. Abductive reasoning level differences by grades

질의응답

핵심어	질문	논문에서 추출한 답변
	다섯 가지 과학과 핵심역량은 무엇인가?	우리나라에서는 2015년 개정 과학과 교육과정에서 ‘모든 이를 위한 과학(Science for All)’으로 과학적 소양 함양 및 탐구 방법 습득을 강조하고, 미래 사회에 필요한 역량 함양을 위하여 과학적 사고력, 과학적 탐구능력, 과학적 문제 해결력, 과학적 의사소통 능력, 과학적 참여와 평생학습 능력과 같은 다섯 가지 과학과 핵심역량을 제시하였다(Ministry of Education, 2015). 그리고 2007년 개정 과학과 교육과정에 과학적 사고력, 창의적 사고력 및 의사소통 능력 함양을 위한 교수·학습 방법의 하나로 토론과 더불어 과학 글쓰기가 신설되어(Ministry of Education & Human Resources, 2007), 2015년 개정 과학과 교육과정까지 지속적으로 제시되고 있다(Ministry of Education, 2015).
	과학 글쓰기에 대한 어려움과 개선을 호소하게 된 근원은 무엇일까?	, 2011; Lim & Kim, 2017). 이는 교육 연구에서 가장 중요하고 기초적인 학생들의 특성 파악(Lee, 2000)이 제대로 이루어지지 않아서 비롯된 문제일 수 있다. 학생들이 글쓰기를 할 때 글에 나타나는 오류에 대한 실제적인 연구가 이루어져야 효과적인 글쓰기 교육이 가능해진다(Emig, 1977).
	과학 글쓰기는 다른 글쓰기와 어떤 차이가 있는가?	우리나라에서는 2007 개정 과학과 교육과정에서부터 과학적 사고력 함양을 위한 교수·학습 방법의 하나로 과학 글쓰기가 도입되어 실시되고 있다(Ministry of Education & Human Resources, 2007). 이러한 상황에서 Park, Jhun, & Lee(2007)는 과학 글쓰기는 소재뿐만 아니라 사고 과정과 내용이 다른 글쓰기와 차별화되므로, 과학 글쓰기에 과학적 사고력이 어떻게 발현되고 있는지 구체적으로 살펴볼 필요가 있음을 강조하였다. 또한 과학에서 다루는 대부분의 내용이 설명적인 장르임에도 불구하고 과학 교과서에 제시된 글쓰기 관련 내용은 문학 장르에 더 가까운 내용이 많다는 것을 볼 때(Norris & Phillips, 2003), 과학의 학문적 특징을 고려하여 설명적인 장르에 나타나는 추론에 초점을 두고 살펴볼 필요가 있다

참고문헌 (69)

Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. in cognitive processes in writing, L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg, editors, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 73-93.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Choi, B., Han, H., Shin, A., Kim, S., & Park, J. (2003). Effects of a cognitive acceleration program on primary school students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 22(1), 1-14.
Chun, J. & Son, J. (2004). A type analysis of creative thinking abilities in science writing - with focus on middle school science textbooks. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 7(2), 285-304.

상세보기
Cooper, J. D. & Kiger, N. D. (2008). Literacy assessment: Helping teachers plan instruction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. (translated by Y. Kang, S. Ko, O. Kwon, H. Ryu, M. Park, J. Bang, J. Lee. I. Jeong, & W. Hwang, Seoul: Kyowusa, 2005.)
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, Inc. (translated by H. Cho, S. Jeong, J. Kim, & J. Kwon, Seoul: Hakjisa, 2010).
Eames, K. & Loewenthal, K. (1990). Effects of handwriting and examiner's expertise on assessment of essays. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(6), 831-833.

상세보기
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.

상세보기
Fairclough, N. (2004). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 6, 121-138.
Fehring, R. J. (1987). Methods to validate nursing diagnoses. Nursing Faculty Research and Publications, 27, 1-9.
Fischer, H. R. (2001). Abductive reasoning as a way of worldmaking. Foundations of Science, 6(4), 361-383.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

상세보기
Greenstein, G. (2013). Writing is thinking: Using writing to teach science. Astronomy Education Review, 12(1).
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354-367.

상세보기
Han, S. (2004). Vygotsky and education: Cultural-historical approach. Seoul: Kyoyukkoahaksa.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2006). When science and literacy meet in the secondary learning space: Implementing the science writing heuristic (SWH). University of Iowa.
Jang, J. Y. & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 1-19.
Jang, S. (2015). The critical discourse analysis(CDA) study of the Korean education contents. Journal of Research on Korean Education, 59, 213-244.
Joung, Y. & Song, J. (2006a). Exploring the implications of Peirce's abduction in science education by theoretical investigation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(6), 703-722.
Joung, Y. & Song, J. (2006b). The Features of the hypotheses generated by pre-service elementary teachers using the form of Peirce's abduction. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 25(2), 126-140.
Ka, E. (2011). A study on the aspects and characteristics of writing development. Ph. D. dissertation. Korea National University of Education.
Kang, S., Jo, J., & Noh, T. (2013). A study on writing process components and writing strategies in argumentative writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1418-1430.

원문보기 상세보기
Keys, C. W. (1999a). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061.

상세보기
Keys, C. W. (1999b). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.

상세보기
Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690.

상세보기
Kim, N. (2015). Reading strategies and text analysis using critical discourse analysis(CDA). Journal of Reading Research, 35, 319-342.
Ku, K. (1993). A study on Vygotsky's theory of the development of verbal thinking: Implications for literacy and writing. Journal of Research of Dae Shin College, 13, 21-42.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., O'Loughlin, M., Schauble, L., Leadbeater, B., & Yotive, W. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Academic Press.
Kwon, Y., Choi, S., Park, Y., & Jeong, J. (2003). Scientific thinking types and processes generated in inductive inquiry by college students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(3), 286-298.
Kwon, Y., Yang, I,, & Chung, W. (2000). An explorative analysis of hypothesis - generation by pre-service science teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(1), 29-42.
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lee, J. & Jeong, E. (2013a). Development of an evaluation tool for assessing scientific thinking ability using science writing. Teacher Education Research, 52(3), 575-588.

상세보기
Lee, J. & Jeong, E. (2013b). The effect of science writing activities on high school students' scientific thinking ability in Life Science 1 class. Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 476-491.
Lee, J., Maeng, S., & Kim, C. (2008). A new way of reading the science classroom discourse: Pedagogical discourse analysis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 832-847.
Lee, J., Maeng, S., Kim, H., & Kim, C. (2007). The systemic functional linguistics analysis of texts in elementary science textbooks by curriculum revision. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(3), 242-252.
Lee, J. & Park, Y. (2016). Analyzing the transcription mode effects on the beta-gamma activity in a writing assessment. Journal of Research on Korean Education, 51(1), 252-284.
Lee, S. (2000). A study on development stages of writing ability. The Korean Language and Literature, 126, 27-50.
Lee, S. (2016). The application of critical discourse analysis for the analysis of texts in the field of social studies education: Focusing on systemic functional linguistics-based analysis. Theory and Research in Citizenship Education, 48(4), 173-224.
Lee, S., Choi, C., Lee, G., Shin, M., & Song, H. (2013). Exploring scientific reasoning in elementary science classroom discourses. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 181-192.

원문보기 상세보기
Lee, S. & Ju, Y. (2005). A study on the aspects of writing ability development. The Education of Korean Language, 118, 127-148.
Lim, O., & Kim, H. (2017). An analysis of perception on science writing of elementary school teachers and students. Cheongram Journal of Research on Science Education, 23(1), 37-52.
Lim, O. & Kim, H. (2018). Scientific reasoning types and levels in science writings of elementary school students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 37(4), 372-390.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett, & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233-265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Ministry of Education (2015). Science curriculum, No. 2015-74 [issue 9]. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources (2007). Science curriculum. No. 2007-79. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Development.
Minto, B. (1996). The pyramid principle: logic in writing and thinking. Pearson Education. (Lee, J., translator (2017). Seoul: The-Nan Publishing.
Nam, J., Kwak, K., Jang, K., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using science writing heuristics (SWH) in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
Nam, J., Park, J., & Lee, D. (2012). The impact of the science writing heuristic approach on students' use of multiplr representations in science writing and students' recognition about multiple representations. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society. 56(6), 759-767.

원문보기 상세보기
Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.

상세보기
Park, E., Jhun, Y., & Lee, I. (2007). Analysis of the elementary school participants' readiness to write on scientific subjects in science writing contest. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(4), 385-394.
Park, J. (2000). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis - Focused on the definition and the characteristics of scientific hypothesis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4). 667-679.
Park, J. & Shin, Y. (2007). Analysis of the types of science writing based on the scientific thinking abilities in science worksheet attached to elementary science textbook. The Bulletin of Science Education, 20(1), 99-112.
Park, Y. (2014). A study of eye movement while Korean teachers assess handwriting and word processor writing samples. Korean Language Education Research, 49(2), 193-224.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201.

상세보기
Rivard, L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.

상세보기
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Logic (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. (translated by K. Kauk, Seoul: Parkyoungsa, 2015).
Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.

상세보기
Sharma, A. & Buxton, C. A. (2015). Human-nature relationship in school science: A Critical discourse analysis of a middle-grade science textbook. Science Education, 99(2), 260-281.

상세보기
Son, J. (2006). A science writing teaching method based on scientific thinking for improving scientific essay writing ability. The Journal of Curriculum & Evaluation, 9(2), 333-355.

상세보기
Son, J. (2009). The study of scientifically gifted students' scientific thinking and creative problem solving ability through science writing. Journal of Science Gifted Education, 1(3), 21-32.
Song, Y., Yang, I., Kim, J., & Choi, H. (2011). A study of the elementary school teachers' perception of science writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 788-800.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Wallace, R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 41-56.

상세보기
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99-149.

상세보기
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223.

상세보기

저자의 다른 논문 :

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