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.39 no.6, 2019년, pp.739 - 753
The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics and limitations of a novice teachers's responsive teaching practice, who framed argumentation productively. One novice teacher and two eighth-grade classes participated in this study. Two of the small student groups with active teacher interven...
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
전통적인 과학 교실에 익숙해져있는 학생들은 논변활동 과정에서 어떠한 모습을 보이는가? | 하지만 전통적인 과학 교실에 익숙해져있는 학생들은 논변 활동과 같은 인식적 활동을 경험해본 바가 거의 없다(Crawford, 2005;Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000). 그 결과, 논변 활동 과정에서 학생들은 동료와의 상호작용보다는 교사와의 상호작용에 더욱 의존하는 모습을 보이기도 한다(González-Howard & McNeill,2019). 따라서 학생들을 논변 활동에 참여하게 할 때 교사의 역할은 중요하다. | |
과학적 논변 활동이란 무엇인가? | 과학적 논변 활동은 과학적 설명, 모델, 예측이나 평가 등을 발달시키기 위하여 여러 사람들이 증거와 이론을 검토하는 사회적 과정이다(Duschl & Osborne, 2002). 학생들은 논변 활동에 참여하면서 증거를 사용하여 주장을 구성하고, 그들의 아이디어를 다른 사람들에게 설득한다. | |
교사가 학생에 대하여 반응하는 방식은 어떻게 실행될 수 있는가? | 반응적 교수는 학생들의 아이디어를 이끌어내고, 학생 사고를 이해하고 해석하며, 이를 바탕으로 반응하는 방식으로 실행된다(Kang & Anderson, 2015). 그리고 교사가 학생에 대하여 반응하는 방식은 학생의 사고를 본질적으로 탐색하는 것과 학생 사고를 활용하여 다른 학생들의 아이디어를 이끌어 내거나 교사가 직접 학생 사고에 반박하는 것으로 실행될 수 있다(Dyer & Sherin,2016). |
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. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
Bills, L. (2000). Politeness in teacher-student dialogue: A socio-linguistic analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(2), 40-47.
Bosser, U., & Lindahl, M. (2019). Students' positioning in the classroom: A study of teacher-student interactions in a socioscientific issue context. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 371-390.
Crawford, T. (2005). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 139-165.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A.W. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Dyer, E. B., & Sherin, M. G. (2016). Instructional reasoning about interpretations of student thinking that supports responsive teaching in secondary mathematics. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 48(1-2), 69-82.
Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. (2019). Teachers' framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821-844.
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.
Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Enderle, P. (2018). How concept familiarity and experience with scientific argumentation are related to the way groups participate in an episode of argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1264-1286.
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.
Harre, R. & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harre & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14-31). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in highschool genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
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.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
Kawasaki, J., & Sandoval, W. (2019). The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 906-922.
Lee, C. E., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Understanding the role of wonderment questions related to activation of conceptual resources in scientific model construction: Focusing on students' epistemological framing and positional framing. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 36(3), 471-483.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.
Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460.
Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers' encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 3-17.
Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
Monte-Sano, C., & Budano, C. (2013). Developing and enacting pedagogical content knowledge for teaching history: An exploration of two novice teachers' growth over three years. Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 22(2), 171-211.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Oliveira, A. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453.
Park, S., & Oliver, J. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.
Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.
Radoff, J., & Hammer, D. (2015). Attention to student framing in responsive teaching. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 189-202). New York, NY, Routledge.
Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research:Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Erico Fermi summer school, course CLVI (pp.1-64). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 35-54.
Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (Eds.) (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
Shim, S. Y., Kim, H. B. (2018). Framing negotiation: Dynamics of epistemological and positional framing in small groups during scientific modeling. Science Education, 102(1), 128-152.
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.
Wallace, C., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.
Wendell, K., Swenson, J., & Dalvi, T. (2019). Epistemological framing and novice elementary teachers' approaches to learning and teaching engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 956-982.
*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.