$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$

연합인증

연합인증 가입 기관의 연구자들은 소속기관의 인증정보(ID와 암호)를 이용해 다른 대학, 연구기관, 서비스 공급자의 다양한 온라인 자원과 연구 데이터를 이용할 수 있습니다.

이는 여행자가 자국에서 발행 받은 여권으로 세계 각국을 자유롭게 여행할 수 있는 것과 같습니다.

연합인증으로 이용이 가능한 서비스는 NTIS, DataON, Edison, Kafe, Webinar 등이 있습니다.

한번의 인증절차만으로 연합인증 가입 서비스에 추가 로그인 없이 이용이 가능합니다.

다만, 연합인증을 위해서는 최초 1회만 인증 절차가 필요합니다. (회원이 아닐 경우 회원 가입이 필요합니다.)

연합인증 절차는 다음과 같습니다.

최초이용시에는
ScienceON에 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 로그인 (본인 확인 또는 회원가입) → 서비스 이용

그 이후에는
ScienceON 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 서비스 이용

연합인증을 활용하시면 KISTI가 제공하는 다양한 서비스를 편리하게 이용하실 수 있습니다.

소집단 모형구성 수업 진행에서 나타난 초임 과학 교사의 인식론적 프레이밍 변화 탐색 -'빈칸 채우기'에서 '사회적 추론 구성'으로-
Changes in a Novice Teacher's Epistemological Framing for Facilitating Small-Group Modeling: From "Filling in Blanks" to "Social Construction of Scientific Reasoning" 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.44 no.2, 2024년, pp.179 - 194  

이은주 (서울대학교) ,  김희백 (서울대학교) ,  심수연 (서울대학교)

초록
AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

본 연구의 목적은 초임 과학 교사가 소집단 모형구성 활동을 운영하며 어떤 인식론적 프레이밍을 보였는지 탐색하고, 연구자와 함께 수업을 설계, 진행, 성찰한 경험이 교사의 인식론적 프레이밍 변화에 어떻게 기여했는지를 이해하는 것이었다. 우리는 경력 2년 차의 초임과학 교사 1명을 사례로 연구하였다. 교사는 약 4개월간 2개 학급에서 소집단 모형구성 활동이 포함된 18차시의 수업을 운영하였으며, 교사의 수업 실행 전후에는 교사-연구자 사이의 협력적 성찰이 13회 이루어졌다. 교사의 수업 실행과 협력적 성찰은 모두 녹화 녹음되었으며 전사되어 질적으로 분석되었다. 우리는 발화 단위로 인식론과 관련된 요소들을 귀납적으로 추출하고, 이러한 발화가 일관성 있게 나타난 부분을 찾아 교사의 인식론적 프레이밍을 유추하였다. 연구 결과, 교사의 인식론적 프레이밍은 단원 초반부에 '빈칸 채우기' 프레이밍, 중반부에 '개인적 추론 구성하기' 프레이밍, 후반부에 '사회적 추론 구성하기' 프레이밍으로 각각 다르게 나타났으며, 소집단 모형구성활동에서 교사와 학생의 역할에 대한 교사의 관점이 뚜렷하게 구분되었다. 이러한 변화는 교사가 연구자와 협력하여 모형구성 수업을 계획, 진행하고 성찰하며, 학생들의 가능성과 달라진 실행을 꾸준히 관찰하면서 나타났다. '빈칸 채우기' 프레이밍에서 '개인적 추론 구성하기' 프레이밍으로의 전환에는 교사가 소집단 모형구성 활동을 운영하고 협력적 성찰하는 과정에서 학생들을 관찰하며 학생들의 능력에 대해 새로운 인식을 가지게 된 것이 중요했다. '개인적 추론 구성하기' 프레이밍에서 '사회적 추론 구성하기' 프레이밍으로의 전환에는 교사가 연구자와의 협업으로 교실에서 사회적 상호작용 장을 형성하여 협력적 지식 구성의 가치를 인식하게 된 것이 중요한 역할을 했다. 이 연구 결과는 소집단 모형구성 활동을 운영하는 교사를 지원하는 교사 교육 방안을 모색하는 데 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것이다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

The aim of this study was to explore how a novice science teacher's epistemological framing, characterized from her modeling instruction, evolved over time. We observed that the teachers' framing changed over time, as she collaborated with researchers to plan, facilitate, and reflect on a series of ...

주제어

#인식론적 프레이밍   #소집단 모형구성 활동   #협력적성찰   #초임교사   #교사 교육  

표/그림 (6)

참고문헌 (80)

  1. Acher A., Arca M., & Sanmarti N. (2007). Modeling as a teaching learning？process for understanding materials: A case study in primary education.？Science Education, 91(3), 398-418.？ 

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

    상세보기

  3. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and？explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.？ 

  4. Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math？in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review？Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020108.？ 

    상세보기

  5. Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2012) Facilitating reflective learning: Coaching,？mentoring and supervision. London, UK: Kogan Page.？ 

  6. Cheng, M. F., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed？explanatory models: The importance of integrating conscious and？intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education,？32(17), 2367-2392.？ 

    상세보기

  7. Clement, J. J. (Ed.). (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and？students. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.？ 

  8. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for？science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9),？916-937.？ 

    상세보기

  9. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2002). Engaging prospective science？teachers in building, testing, and teaching about models. Paper？presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for？Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA, United States.？ 

  10. Cullin, M. J., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). The interplay between prospective？science teachers' modeling strategies and understandings. Paper？presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for？Research in Science Teaching. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.？ 

  11. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective？thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co？Publishers.？ 

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

  13. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking？science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8.？Washington, DC: National Academies Press.？ 

  14. 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 (Ed.),？Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and？implications for practice (pp. 409-434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge？University Press.？ 

  15. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science？education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht,？The Netherlands: Springer.？ 

  16. Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). The role of argumentation in？modelling-based teaching. In J. K. Gilbert & R. Justi (Eds.),？Modelling-based teaching in science education (pp. 97-120). New？York, NY: Springer.？ 

  17. Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers' framing of？argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus？communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,？56(6), 821-844.？ 

    상세보기

  18. Guy-Gaytan, C., Gouvea, J. S., Griesemer, C., & Passmore, C. (2019).？Tensions between learning models and engaging in modeling:？Exploring implications for science classrooms. Science & Education,？28, 843-864.？ 

  19. Ha, H., Lee, Y., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring the teachers' responsive？teaching practice and epistemological framing in whole class？discussion after small group argumentation activity. Journal of the？Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 11-26.？ 

  20. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology.？In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemolgy: The？psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190).？Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.？ 

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

    상세보기

  22. 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. 89-119). Greenwich, CT:？Information Age Publishing.？ 

  23. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Personal epistemology: The？psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. New York, NY:？Routledge.？ 

  24. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological？framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.？ 

  25. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000).？"Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school？genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.？ 

  26. Jo, A. R. (2016). Understanding of pedagogical content knowledge on the？middle school science teacher's teaching practice in a co-construction？of scientific models (Master's thesis). Seoul National University.？ 

  27. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers' knowledge about？and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning？science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273-1292.？ 

  28. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers' views on the nature of models.？International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369-1386.？ 

    상세보기

  29. Kademian, S. M., &Davis, E. A. (2018). Supporting beginning teacher？planning of investigation-based science discussions. Journal of Science？Teacher Education, 29(8), 712-740.？ 

    상세보기

  30. Kang, E. H., Kim, C. J., Choe, S. U., Yoo, J. H., Park, H. J., Lee, S. Y.,？& Kim, H. B. (2012). Small group interaction and norms in the process？of constructing a model for blood flow in the heart. Journal of the？Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 372-387.？ 

  31. 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.？ 

  32. Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2016). Designing,？launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for？students that advance scientific thinking. Journal of Research in？Science Teaching, 53(9), 1316-1340.？ 

    상세보기

  33. Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers' use of？laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and？practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140-165.？ 

  34. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective？versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of？nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7),？551-578.？ 

    상세보기

  35. Kim, B., & Kim, H. B. (2019). Exploring Characteristics and Limitations？of a Novice Teacher's Responsive Teaching Practice in Small Group？Scientific Argumentation: Focus on Framing. Journal of the Korean？Association for Science Education, 39(6), 739-753.？ 

  36. Lau, M. (2010). Understanding the dynamics of teacher attention: Examples？of how high school physics and physical science teachers attend to？student ideas (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland.？ 

  37. LaVan, S. K., & Beers, J. (2005). The role of cogenerative dialogue in？learning to teach and transforming learning environments. In K. Tobin,？R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education:？New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 147-164). New？York, NY: Rowan & Littlefield.？ 

  38. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral？participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.？ 

  39. 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(4), 331-359.？ 

    상세보기

  40. Lee, E. J., Yun, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring small group？argumentation and epistemological framing of gifted science students？as revealed by the analysis of their responses to anomalous data.？Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3),？419-429.？ 

  41. Lee, S. (1999). A Qualitative Analysis of Individual and Collaborative？Reflection. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1),？287-305.？ 

  42. Lee, S., Kim, C. J., Choe, S. U., Yoo, J., Park, H., Kang, E., & Kim, H.？B. (2012). Exploring the patterns of group model development about？blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group？interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education,？32(5), 805-822.？ 

  43. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Cultivating model-based reasoning in？science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook？of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge？University Press.？ 

  44. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention？to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.？ 

    상세보기

  45. 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.？ 

  46. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2011). In Quest of？productive modeling-based learning discourse in elementary school？science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919-951.？ 

  47. Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry？classroom: Using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point？in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4),？693-720.？ 

    상세보기

  48. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science？classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.？ 

  49. Neilson M., Davis E. (2012). Pre-service Elementary Teachers' Evaluations？of Elementary Students' Scientific Models: An aspect of pedagogical？content knowledge for scientific modeling. International Journal of？Science Education, 34(12), pp. 1-29.？ 

  50. Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual？convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of？Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658.？ 

    상세보기

  51. Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for？argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of？Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554.？ 

    상세보기

  52. Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary？science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers'？beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.？ 

  53. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners' epistemic？criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science？Teaching, 48(5), 486-511.？ 

    상세보기

  54. Radoff, J., & Hammer, D. (2015). Attention to student framing in responsive？teaching. In A. D. Robertson, R. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.),？Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 189-202). New？York, NY: Routledge.？ 

  55. 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.？1-50). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.？ 

  56. Richards, J., Elby, A., Luna, M. J., Robertson, A. D., Levin, D. M., &？Nyeggen, C. G. (2020). Reframing the responsiveness challenge: A？framing-anchored explanatory framework to account for irregularity？in novice teachers' attention and responsiveness to student thinking.？Cognition and Instruction, 38(2), 116-152.？ 

    상세보기

  57. 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

  58. Roth, W. M., Robin, K., & Zimmermann, A. (2002). Coteaching/cogenerative？dialoguing: Learning environments research as classroom praxis.？Learning Environments Research, 5, 1-28.？ 

    상세보기

  59. Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing？from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science？Teaching, 50(3), 284-314.？ 

    상세보기

  60. Russ, R. S., Lee, V. R., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). Framing in cognitive clinical？interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic student？understandings of the discourse interaction. Science Education, 96(4),？573-599.？ 

  61. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A？critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,？41(5), 513-536.？ 

    상세보기

  62. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the？outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3),？448-484.？ 

  63. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies？and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education,？89(4), 634-656.？ 

  64. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge:？Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition？and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.？ 

    상세보기

  65. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus,？D., ... &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.？ 

    상세보기

  66. Shim, S. Y. (2020). Exploring How a High School Science Teacher's？Understanding and Facilitation of Scientific Modeling Shifted through？Participation in a Professional Learning Community. Journal of the？Korean Association for Science Education, 40(1), 29-40.？ 

  67. 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.？ 

  68. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in？teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.？ 

    상세보기

  69. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:？Research and development in the science classroom. International？Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.？ 

  70. Simon, S., Richardson, K., & Amos, R. (2012). The design and enactment？of argumentation activities. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on？scientific argumentation: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 97-115).？Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.？ 

  71. Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2000). Lifelines to the Classroom:？Designing Support for Beginning Teachers. Knowledge Brief. WestEd.？ 

  72. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University？Press.？ 

  73. Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M., Colley, C.,？& Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom？activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1-58.？ 

    상세보기

  74. Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative？dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133-142.？ 

  75. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher？psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.？ 

  76. Wendell, K. B., Swenson, J. E., & Dalvi, T. S. (2019). Epistemological？framing and novice elementary teachers' approaches to learning and？teaching engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,？56(7), 956-982.？ 

    상세보기

  77. Windschitl, M., Lohwasser, K., Tasker, T., Shim, S. Y., & Long, C. (2021).？Learning to teach science during the clinical experience: Agency,？opportunity, and struggle. Science Education, 105(5), 961-988.？ 

  78. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2011). Ambitious pedagogy？by novice teachers: Who benefits from tool-supported collaborative？inquiry into practice and why?. Teachers College Record, 113(7),？1311-1360.？ 

    상세보기

  79. Yang, H., & Shim, S. Y. (2023). Learning opportunities in the discourse？of a productive professional learning community: Focusing on types？of inquiry cycles. Journal of the Korean Association for Science？Education, 43(5), 445-458.？ 

  80. Yun, S. M. (2016). Understanding the establishment of small group norms？in productive scientific argumentation (Doctoral dissertation). Seoul？National University.？ 

저자의 다른 논문 :

관련 콘텐츠

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

FREE

Free Access. 출판사/학술단체 등이 허락한 무료 공개 사이트를 통해 자유로운 이용이 가능한 논문

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

저작권 관리 안내
섹션별 컨텐츠 바로가기

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

AI-Helper 아이콘
AI-Helper
안녕하세요, AI-Helper입니다. 좌측 "선택된 텍스트"에서 텍스트를 선택하여 요약, 번역, 용어설명을 실행하세요.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.

선택된 텍스트

맨위로