논변 활동 중심 과학 수업에서 교사의 반응적 교수 실행 탐색 -논변의 구조적⋅대화적 측면을 중심으로- = Exploring Teachers’ Responsive Teaching Practice in Argumentation-Based Science Classroom: Focus on Structural and Dialogical Aspects of Argument

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ responsive moves that affect students’ argumentation practices, and to propose responsive teaching strategies in argumentation-based science classroom. Two teachers, who have not implemented argumentation in their classes, and 57 students, participated in this study. We recorded and transcribed their classes and interviews for the analysis. According to grounded theory approach, we categorized the teachers’ responsive moves as focused on either structural or dialogical aspects of argumentation, and qualitatively analyzed their responsive teaching practices in classes. We discovered that the teachers mostly responded to structural rather than dialogical aspects of argumentation, particularly during the students’ small-group discussions. This was mainly due to their instructional goals, which focused on the structural aspect of argumentation, and the limited time available for supporting small-groups. Regarding the structural aspects, those responsive moves that explored the students’ thinking or facilitated their reasoning helped them to share their thinking and justify their arguments further with recognition of learning goals in the argumentation activities. Regarding the dialogical aspects, which were seen mostly in whole-class discussions, the moves that underlined similarities and differences between arguments, facilitated the sharing of a small-group’s arguments with the entire class, or asked a specific student to evaluate the arguments were notable. These moves supported clarification of various small-groups’ arguments, which led to reconstruction of coherent argument through evaluation and rebuttal of these arguments, consequentially facilitating dialogical interactions. Based on these results, we proposed responsive teaching strategies in an argumentation-based science classroom.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구의 목적은 논변 중심 과학 수업에서 교사의 반응적 발화가 학생들의 논변 활동에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 수업 사례를 탐색함으 로써 반응적 교수 실행 전략을 제안하는 것이다. 논변 수업의 경험이 없는 중학교 교사 2명과 학생 57명이 연구에 참여하였으며 ‘자극과 반응’ 단원을 중심으로 논변 활동 중심의 과학 수업이 이루어졌다.
모든 수업과 인터뷰는 녹화, 녹음 후 전사하여 주요 분석 자료로 활용 하였다. 근거 이론에 따라 두 교사의 반응적 발화를 유형화하여 논변의 구조적⋅대화적 측면으로 범주화하였으며, 이를 토대로 교사의 반응적 교수 실행이 드러난 수업 사례를 중심으로 질적 분석을 수행 하였다. 연구 결과 두 교사는 논변의 대화적 측면 보다는 구조적 측면에 주로 반응하였는데, 특히 전체 논의 보다는 소집단 활동에서 이러한 양상이 두드러졌다. 이는 한 명의 교사가 짧은 시간 내에 여러 소집단에 개입해야 하는 교실의 상황과 논변 활동의 구조적 측면에 주된 목표를 둔 교사의 인식이 주요 요인이었다. 논변의 구조적 측면에 대한 교사의 반응적 발화 중 학생의 사고를 탐색하거나 추론을 촉진하는 발화는 학생들이 자신의 사고를 드러내고 수업의 목표를 인식하며 추론의 책임을 갖고 스스로 사고해 나가도록 지원하였다.
논변의 대화적 측면에 대한 교사의 반응적 발화는 주로 5차시 수업의 전체 논의에서 다수 나타났는데 소집단 간 논변의 차이를 명확히 보여준 수업 과제가 대화적 상호작용 촉진의 기회를 제공하였다. 이때 교사의 논변 간 공통점과 차이점을 부각시키는 발화, 소집단의 논변을 학급 전체에 발표하게 하는 발화, 특정한 학생을 지목하여 논변을 검증하고 평가하게 한 발화들은 소집단 간 논변의 차이를 명확히 드러내게 하여 소집단 간 검증과 반박을 이끌었고, 서로 다른 주장을 담은 논변 간의 연결을 지속적으로 지원하며 대화적 상호작용을 촉진하였다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 논변 활동에서 교사의 반응적 교수 실행을 위한 교수 전략을 제언하였다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김선아, "협력적 성찰과 과학 논변수업 실행에서 드러난 교사의 논변특이적 PCK 탐색" 한국과학교육학회 35 (35): 1019-1030, 2015

2 하희수, "소집단 논변 활동에서 반응적 교수법이 학생들의 인식론적 프레이밍에 미치는 영향 탐색" 한국과학교육학회 37 (37): 63-75, 2017

3 Ball, D. L., "With an eye on the mathematical horizon : Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics" 93 (93): 373-397, 1993

4 Maskiewicz, A. C., "Understanding the coconstruction of inquiry practices : A case study of a responsive teaching environment" 49 (49): 429-464, 2012

5 Lee, J. H., "Understanding of small group students’ productive practice in scientific argumentation focusing on the change of epistemological resources network" Seoul National University 2016

6 Pierson, J. L., "The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning" The University of Texas at Austin. 2008

7 McNeill, K. L., "Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation : The impact of professional development on K–12 teachers" 97 (97): 936-972, 2013

8 McNeill, K. L., "Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials" 15 (15): 153-191, 2006

9 Duschl, R. A., "Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education" 2002

10 Kang, H., "Supporting Preservice Science Teachers’ Ability to Attend and Respond to Student Thinking by Design" 99 (99): 863-895, 2015

11 Kolsto, S. D., "Social aspects of argumentation" 2008

12 Damşa, C. I., "Shared epistemic agency : An empirical study of an emergent construct" 19 (19): 143-186, 2010

13 McNeill, K. L., "Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms : The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation" 94 (94): 203-229, 2010

14 Duschl, R., "Science education in three-part harmony : Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals" 32 (32): 268-291, 2008

15 Colley, C., "Rigor in elementary science students’discourse : The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk" 100 (100): 1009-1038, 2016

16 Hammer, D., "Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of science" 6 (6): 51-72, 2012

17 McNeill, K. L., "Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation : Using classroom contexts to assess high‐quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation" 53 (53): 261-290, 2016

18 Levin, D. M., "Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking" 60 (60): 142-154, 2009

19 Lead States, N. G. S. S., "Next generation science standards: For states, by states" 2013

20 Cazden, C. B., "Handbook of discourse processes" 165-197, 2003

21 Engle, R. A., "Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement : Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom" 20 (20): 399-483, 2002

22 Berland, L. K., "Framing for scientific argumentation" 49 (49): 68-94, 2012

23 Stroupe, D., "Examining classroom science practice communities : How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science‐aspractice" 98 (98): 487-516, 2014

24 Driver, R., "Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms" 84 (84): 287-312, 2000

25 Osborne, J., "Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science" 41 (41): 994-1020, 2004

26 Gamoran Sherin, M., "Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision" 60 (60): 20-37, 2009

27 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., "Doing the lesson"or"doing science : Argument in high school genetics" 84 (84): 757-792, 2000

28 Robertson, A. D., "Documenting Variability Within Teacher Attention and Responsiveness to the Substance of Student Thinking" 227 : 2015

29 Berland, L. K., "Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation" 95 (95): 191-216, 2011

30 Levin, D., "Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science" National Science Teachers Association 2012

31 Corbin, J., "Basics of qualitative research" Sage 2014

32 Levin, D. M., "Attending and responding to student thinking in science" 74 (74): 158-162, 2012

33 Erduran, S., "Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research" Springer 2008

34 National Research Council., "A framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas" National Academies Press 2012

35 Ministry of Education, "2015 revised science curriculum"