전문인으로서의 학습 과정 중 과학교사의 논증

강남화 ( Nam Hwa Kang ) 한국교원대학교 과학교육연구소 2013 청람과학교육연구논총 Vol.19 No.1

This study examined the nature of the argumentation that science teachers engaged in individually and socially with their colleagues. Five secondary science teachers participated in argumentation activities about two topics on science and two topics on teaching science through argumentation. Findings showed that the teachers tended to construct more elaborate arguments in writing than in group discussions. When coded with argument components, individual written arguments had more components supporting each claim than verbal social arguments. With respect to topics of arguments, the nature of engagement in argumentation was different between arguing about science and arguing about teaching. The teachers tended to be quick in making a conclusive claim and justifying it without much argumentation when discussing science content. However, when arguing about teaching, the teachers made multiple claims and argumentation was more enthusiastic. When examining cognitive interactions, the teachers utilized their colleagues’ ideas less when constructing arguments about science content than about teaching. All the teachers in general didn’t want to convince others of their ideas, and in return didn’t try to understand different ideas when discussing science content. However, they were more open to ideas about teaching. Reasons for these differences, implications, and further research topics are suggested.

다양성 존중을 위한 논증 교육의 패러다임 탐색 - 설득적 논증으로부터 성찰적 논증으로의 전환 -

장성민 ( Chang Sung-min ) 한국어교육학회(구 한국국어교육연구학회) 2021 국어교육 Vol.0 No.172

This study aimed to overview theories of reflective argumentation and explore methods that support teaching and learning. Reflective argumentation is an alternative paradigm that demonstrates the dialogic and dialectical nature of the argument through two-sided reasoning that weighs and synthesizes differences in diverse positions. A transition to reflective argumentation can contribute to resolving confirmation bias (from persuasive argumentation) and respecting diversity by acknowledging and responding to alternative positions. We proposed the following methods that support teaching and learning: multiple documents, graphic representational tools, explicit instruction in strategies with modeling, and collaborative discourse. This study is meaningful in that it points out the problems of existing education developed mainly based on persuasive argumentation (e.g., debate, refutation) and proposes an alternative paradigm that demonstrates the nature of argumentation. Focusing on the gap between social and cognitive approaches to argumentation and considering various responses to different positions would deepen the understanding of argumentation, a complex communicative activity in which comprehension, expression, and learning are intertwined.

논변, 논의 그리고 논증: 개념의 명로화를 위한 문헌조사 연구

강남화 ( Nam Hwa Kang ),이은경 ( Eun Kyung Lee ) 한국과학교육학회 2013 한국과학교육학회지 Vol.33 No.6

It has been a decade since argument and argumentation were introduced in science education literature in South Korea. The word “argument” has been translated into three different Korean terms in literature. The purpose of this study was to clarify those translated terms by examining how the terms were defined and used in Korean education research literature. From a philosophical perspective on the diversity of translation, we examined definitions of argument and argumentation, research topics in papers published in major international journals on science education, and reviewed relevant science education papers published in South Korean journals. We reviewed 79 papers published since the year 2000 in major international journals on science education, whose titles have terms argument and/or argumentation and 37 Korean science education papers whose titles have terms translated from the two English words. Findings showed that Korean researchers defined argument and argumentation either in a general sense or in a specific sense such as science investigation or group work aspects, depending on research contexts. Researchers in Korea rarely mentioned the diversity of translation. If they mentioned it, justification for a specific translation of the term was not provided except for in one case. When the same foreign literature was reviewed to define “argument” or “argumentation, different Korean words were used to translate the same two terms. This indicated to the researchers that the translation of the terms was not related to their definitions of them. On the other hand, each research group used a certain translation of the term consistently, indicating that translations might be based on research tradition. Based on the findings, a position on translation of the term is proposed in terms of professionalism and communication between research groups.

논증 담화 분석 연구의 방법론적 고찰: 논증활동의 협력적 구성과 인식적 실행의 분석을 중심으로

맹승호 ( Seung Ho Maeng ),박영신 ( Young Shin Park ),김찬종 ( Chan Jong Kim ) 한국과학교육학회 2013 한국과학교육학회지 Vol.33 No.4

This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin`s argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin`s argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants` collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMES and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the how of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.

비판적 사고의 개발에 대한 논의

박유정 한국교양교육학회 2012 교양교육연구 Vol.6 No.3

The purpose of this study is to give a preliminary investigation about making an curriculum "Critical Thinking" based on Argument. Critical Thinking as an curriculum has two parts, where one is about logical inference in Logics and the other is about contextual thinking in Humanities. So this paper is about to summarize these discussions. At first, the problem of Argument is dealt with definition of Argument, distinguishing Argument from Non-Argument, and Argument types. So the first teaching point is about knowing the composition of Argument(Premise and Conclusion) and distinguishing them in given statements. The second is about distinguishing Argument from Non-Argument, and the third is about understanding Argument types such as Induction and Deduction. And Critical Thinking as contextual thinking proceeds to Humanities Contexts through Argument. In other words, it applies Argument for Humanities Contexts in the form of Logical Essay and Debate. More and more the key point of Critical Thinking lies in contextual and reflective thinking about Humanities, not the logical thinking like Argument. So it is necessary that Critical thinking to be a good curriculum select good contents. To conclude, Critical Thinking as a curriculum has two parts, Argument and Humanities, and it should prepare many good contents for the key point of it lies in the latter. 이 글은 비판적 사고, 즉 논증을 통한 논술과 토론 교과목인 비판적 사고의 개발에 대한 논의를 정리하였다. 기존의 논리학은 논증에 기반 한 추론능력의 학습에 초점이 맞춰져 있었다면, 비판적 사고는 그러한 논증과 그것이 처해 있는 맥락에 대한 반성능력을 함양하는 데 그 초점이 있다. 이에 비판적 사고 교과목은 기존의 형식 논리적 논증보다는 논술과 토론과 같은 인문학의 기초능력과 연계된 융합적 논리학이고자 한다. 따라서 이 글은 비판적 사고 교과목이 갖는 두 축, 논리적 추론과 인문적 기초 양자에 대해 개괄적으로 검토함으로써 이 교과목 개발의 기초 작업을 제시하고자 한다. 우선 비판적 사고의 한 축인 논리적 추론과 관련하여 논증에 대해 고찰한다. 즉 논증의 정의, 논증을 논증 아닌 것과 구별하는 것, 그리고 논증의 종류에 대해 살펴본다. 논증은 전제와 결론으로 이루어진 말 묶음이라고 정의되므로, 제시문 속에서 논증의 전제와 결론을 찾는 연습을 한다. 그리고 논증을 논증이 아닌 것들, 즉 설명이나 기술 그리고 억지와 구별하는 연습을 하고, 이를 통해 논증의 성격을 보다 분명하게 이해하도록 한다. 그리고 나서 논증의 종류인 연역논증과 귀납논증에서 양자를 구별하는 것뿐만 아니라 각각의 종류 및 타당성을 판별하는 연습을 한다. 이렇게 논증에 대한 이해가 확실해지면, 그것을 인문적 맥락 속에서 이해하는 비판적 사고에 적용하는 데로 나아간다. 비판적 사고는 크게 두 영역, 즉 논증적 읽기와 쓰기 그리고 논증적 듣기와 말하기로 이루어진다. 전자는 ‘논술’이라고 불리고 후자는 ‘토론’이라고 하는데, 논술과 토론은 모두 인문적 텍스트를 통해서 그것의 논증적 맥락을 살펴보는 수순을 밟는다. 이러한 비판적인 맥락 파악에는 앞서 학습했던 논증에 대한 논리적 추론 지식이 활용될 것이다. 그리고 토론에서는 추론 지식 이외에도 말하는 상대에 대한 윤리적 태도 또한 함께 요구되므로 주의해야 한다.요컨대 지식 정보화 사회로 치닫는 요즘, 논리학은 이제 더 이상 아리스토텔레스적인 전통적 추론 능력으로 머물지 않고, 쏟아지는 무수한 정보들을 올바르게 판단할 수 있는 비판적 사고력을 닦는 중요한 기술로서 거론된다. 이러한 시대적 요구에 부응하기 위해 PSAT 등의 실용적 시험뿐만 아니라 대학의 교과목에서도 비판적 사고라는 언어 추론적 교과목이 개발되고 있는 것이다. 앞으로 비판적 사고는 논리적 추론 능력보다는 그것의 맥락을 파악하는 반성적이고 비판적인 사고력 함양으로 나아갈 것으로 예견된다. 이를 위해서는 논증을 훈련할 수 있는 보다 좋은 텍스트가 요구되는데, 그러한 텍스트로서 우리에게 인간성 함양이라는 기초적 자질을 제시하는 고전적 텍스트를 추천하고 싶다.

소집단 논변활동에 대한 협력적 성찰을 통한 중학생들의 소집단 규범과 논변활동 능력 발달 탐색

이신영 ( Shinyoung Lee ),박소현 ( So-hyun Park ),김희백 ( Hui-baik Kim ) 한국과학교육학회 2016 한국과학교육학회지 Vol.36 No.6

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary students` progression in group norms and argumentation competency through collaborative reflection about small group argumentation. The progression is identified as the development of group norms and an epistemic understanding of argumentation with the enhancement of group argumentation competency during collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons. Participants were four first grade middle school students who have different academic achievements and learning approaches. They participated in ten argumentation lessons related to photosynthesis and in seven collaborative reflections. As a result, the students` group norms related to participation were developed, and the students` epistemic understanding of argumentation was enhanced. Furthermore, the students` group argumentation competencies, identified as argumentation product and argumentation process, were advanced. As the collaborative reflection and argumentation lessons progressed, statements related to rebuttal increased and different students suggested a range of evidence with which to justify their claims or to rebut others` arguments. These findings will give a better idea of how to present an apt application of argumentation to science teachers and science education researchers.

원운동 학습 상황에서 Toulmin의 논의구조(TAP)와 다이어그램을 이용한 대화적 논의과정 분석틀 개발

신호심 ( Ho Sim Shin ),김현주 ( Hyun Joo Kim ) 한국과학교육학회 2012 한국과학교육학회지 Vol.32 No.5

The purpose of this study was to develop analytic framework for dialogic argumentation to show the context and flow visualizing interactions of argumentation, to be able to present quality of argumentation specifically. For this, we formulated a method of the argumentation diagram using feature of diagram simple and structurally visualizing interrelation between argument components, and then quantified quality of argumentation to argument level score on this basis. We have developed the learning material for argumentation about a vertical circular motion and used the obtained translations from applying it in developing the framework. We chose argument statements among full transcript and then coded as Toulmin`s argument components, and these codes was effectively arranged and linked to show argumentation diagram. Results by argumentation diagram could be useful understanding of interactive argumentation context and the flow and present frequency, the combination of argument elements, rough qualitative level of argumentation. To quantify argumentation quality, we gave different scores to different link lines reflecting indication of argumentation quality like that diversity of argument component, justification, presence or absence of rebuttals. The process of identification of argument level is very simple, qualitative level of argumentation represented as concrete score could present various and concrete argument level. Developed analytic framework might contribute to argumentation research field, because it can present effectively dialogic argumentation result. Also, various analysis cases might guide designing an effective argumentation practice and circular motion learning.

학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형의 탐색

김희경 ( Hee Kyong Kim ),송진웅 ( Jin Woong Song ) 한국과학교육학회 2004 한국과학교육학회지 Vol.24 No.6

School science practical work is often criticized as lacking key elements of authentic science, such as peer argumentation or debate through which social consensus is obtained. The purpose of this paper is to review the recent studies about the argumentation and to explore the conditions and the model of argumentative scientific inquiry, which is specially designed open inquiry in order to facilitate students` peer argumentation. For this purpose, a theoretical discussion for the argumentative scientific inquiry as the way of authentic inquiry in schools was developed. The conditions for argumentative scientific inquiry were found to be the following: multiple arguments, students` own claims, opportunities for oral and written argumentation, equal status of debaters, and community of cooperative competition. For these conditions, the argumentative scientific inquiry was organized into experiment activities and argumentation activities. During argumentation activity, students should be guided to advance written argumentation through writing a group report for peer review and oral argumentation through a critical discussion. Through the argumentation between groups and in group, the students` arguments would be elaborated repeatedly. The feedback from argumentation links experiment activities to argumentation activities. Hence, the whole process of this inquiry model is circular.

‘반논항’과 ‘잠재논항’의 개념 규정 방식에 대한 재고

조진수 택민국학연구원 2019 국학연구론총 Vol.0 No.24

The purpose of this study is to identify the distinction between ‘semi-argument’ and ‘implicit argument’ which has been previously recognized as being a similar concept. For this purpose, related studies were reviewed. In the case of semi-argument, we examined the issue of how to handle the case when it was realized as phonetic form in the sentence, and critically discussed how the theoretical model called ‘Variable Media Projection Hypothesis’ influenced the concept of semi-argument. In the case of implicit argument, it was revealed that the previous discussions have defined implicit argument on the basis of arbitrariness unlike the definition in general linguistics. Based on the results of this review, it is revealed that the semi-argument is a concept based on arbitrariness, and implicit argument is a concept based on implicitness. We discussed how the arbitrariness and implicitness of the argument are conceptually distinguished. In addition, by suggesting that the implicitness of implicit argument is a matter of degree, this paper suggests a way to resolve the debate about semi-dispute and implicit argument. 본 연구는 그간 국어학계에서 유사 개념으로 처리되어 온 반논항과 잠재논항이 구분되는 개념임을 규명하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 우선 반논항과 잠재논항에 관한 기존 논의를 검토하였다. 반논항의 경우 문장에 실현되었을 경우의 처리 방식에 관한 쟁점을 살피고, ‘가변중간투사론’이라는 이론적 모형이 반논항 처리에 어떤 영향을 끼쳤는지를 비판적으로 논의하였다. 잠재논항의 경우 그간의 논의가 수의성을 기반으로 잠재논항을 규정하는 방식을 취해 왔음을 밝히고, 이러한 방식이 일반언어학에서 잠재논항을 규정하는 방식과 어떤 차이가 있는지를 논의하였다. 이러한 검토 결과를 바탕으로 반논항은 수의성에 기반한 개념이고, 잠재논항은 잠재성에 기반한 개념이라는 점을 밝히고, 논항의 수의성과 잠재성이 개념적으로 어떻게 구분되는지를 논의하였다. 아울러 잠재논항의 잠재성이 정도성의 문제라는 점을 밝힘으로써 반논항, 잠재논항의 처리 방식에 관한 그간의 논행을 해결할 수 있는 방안을 제시하였다.

칼 포퍼형 토론을 응용한 토론 발언의 분석과 이해-<사형제 폐지> 토론 사례를 중심으로-

황혜영 한국사고와표현학회 2011 사고와표현 Vol.4 No.1

The argument is a way of communication in which the pros andcons consider the problem of different fronts that they come tounderstand the problem and solve it. The argument used to developthe capacity of expression, that is, the ability to speak, listen andwrite, and read. The argument can also explore the plural andintegrative thinking. Throughout the argument, the debater learns tolisten carefully to the words of his opponent, to correct his ownopinion and to persuade his opponent with his arguments so that hecan develop critical thinking ability. Therefore, the importance of theargument is becoming more significant. In the academic debate, each debater is speaking according to thedetermined length, order and role. It contains different kinds of as theintroductory argument, interactive questions, protest arguments, etc.. The academic debate contains different kinds of arguments as theintroductory argument, interactive questions, protest arguments, etc. What is the role and nature of each argument? How can we prepareeach stage of the argument? For that purpose, we tried to analyse thenature and characteristics of each stage of discussion through theexample of a debate on the abolition of the death penalty in thecourse of <Thinking and Expression>. Through this work, weunderstand the role and nature of each stage of the debate andespecially the importance of the interaction that binds the argumentswith each other conferring the true meaning of each argument. 토론은 찬성과 반대, 지지와 반박 등 상반된 두 입장이 함께 문제를 다각도로파헤침으로써 문제를 이해하고 해결해나가고자 하는 말하기 방식으로, 토론은 말하기, 듣기, 쓰기의 다양한 표현 연습과 문제에 대한 종합적이고 복수적인 사고를 발견하게 해주는 통합적인 의사소통 방식으로 오늘날 사회에서 그 중요성이더욱 강조되고 있다. 아카데미 토론에서는 정해진 절차의 발언의 종류와 순서, 역할과 시간에 따라자신에게 주어진 발언을 하게 된다. 토론을 통하여 발언자는 나와 다른 의견을 경청하여 들으며 나와 다른 생각을 이해하고 포용하는 것과 동시에 자신의 생각을수정하고 또한 자신의 입장을 상대방에게 설득하기 위해 논거를 제시하고 질문하고 반론을 하는 과정에서 비판적이고 종합적인 사고력과 설득력과 논리적인 표현력을 기를 수 있다. 포퍼 형 토론과 같은 아카데미 토론은 입론, 확인질문, 반론과 같은 발언들로 채워진다. 각각의 발언은 어떤 역할을 하며 어떻게 발언을 구성하여야 할 것인가? 우리는 형식 토론의 발언의 성격에 대한 분석과 이해를 도모하기 위해 2010년 <사고와 표현 2> 수업에서 포퍼 형 토론 방식을 응용한 아카데미토론 방식에 따라 진행한 토론의 구체적인 사례에 나타난 개별 발언의 종류별 특징과 성격을 분석하고 발언들 사이의 관계를 살펴보았다. <사형제 폐지> 주제에 대해 토론한 구체적인 사례에 나타난 발언의 종류별 특징과 성격, 발언의 구성 방식에 대해 분석하고, 토론 발언들 간의 연관성을 찾아본 과정을 통하여 우리는 토론의 발언은 발언의 종류와 역할에 따라 그 성격과 구성방식이 달라지며,개별 발언은 토론의 연속적인 진행 과정의 내적인 논리 속에서 그 의미와 가치를찾을 수 있음을 알 수 있다.