"°úÇй®È­±³À°"

2006-05-25 (Vol 3, No 5)

·Î±×ÀÎ | À¥Áø | ÇѸ¶´ç

¸ÕÁ£±Û  |  ´ÙÀ½±Û  |  Â÷·Ê

±¹Á¦Àû °úÇб³À°Çмú³í¹® ¿ä¾à°ú ¿Ü±¹ °úÇб³À° ¹× ±¹Á¦È­

International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3) 2006

°úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾ç ¿¬±¸¿Í ½Çõ¿¡ ÀÖ¾î °æ°è °¡·ÎÁö¸£±â¿¡¼­ Á¶¸Á ¼ö·ÅÀ¸·ÎÀÇ À̵¿
Title: Moving from Border Crossing to Convergence of Perspectives in Language and Science Literacy Research and Practice.

Authors: Hand, Brian1 brian-hand@uiowa.edu , Prain, Vaughan2
1 University of Iowa, USA
2 LaTrobe University, Bendigo, Australia

ÀÌ ¼Ò°³±Û¿¡¼­´Â 2001³âºÎÅÍ 2002³â±îÁö ÇмúȸÀǷκÎÅÍ °úÇÐ ¹®ÇØ·Â ¿¬±¸µéÀ» °£·«ÇÏ°Ô ÃßÀûÇÏ°í, À̵é ȸÀÇ¿¡ µµÀÔµÈ ´Ù¾çÇÑ Á¶¸ÁµéÀÌ ¾î¶»°Ô Á¡Â÷ ¼ö·ÅµÇ¾î°¡´ÂÁö¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ¹®ÇØ·Â °æ°èµé°ú °ü°èµÈ ÀÌÇصé, ¾ð¾îÀÇ ±â´ÉÀû »ç¿ë, ±×¸®°í ¸¶À½ÀÇ ½À°ü Çü¼º µîÀÌ ³íÀǵǾú´Ù. ¸¶Áö¸·À¸·Î À̹ø Ưº°È£¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÈ ³í¹®µéÀ» ¼Ò°³ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
This introduction briefly traces the development of science literacy research from conferences in 2001 and 2002, and shows how the diverse perspectives brought to these conferences are gradually converging in research and practice. Understandings pertaining to literacy boundaries, the functional use of language, and building habits of mind are discussed. Finally, the articles in this special issue are introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

°úÇÐ °øµ¿Ã¼ÀÇ ¹®¼­ ´ãÈ­: µÎ °úÇÐÀÚÀÇ °úÇп¡ ´ëÇÑ °üÁ¡, ¾ð¾îÀÇ »ç¿ë, °úÇÐŽ±¸¿¡¼­ Àú¼úÀÇ ¿ªÇÒ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ´ëÈ­, ±×¸®°í ±×µéÀÇ ÀνķÐÀû °üÁ¡°ú ¾ð¾îÀÇ ÀÏÄ¡
Title: Written Discourse in Scientific Communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language.

Authors: Yore, Larry D.1 lyore@uvic.ca, Florence, Marilyn K.2, Pearson, Terry W.1, Weaver, Andrew J.1
1University of Victoria, Canada
2University of Alberta, Canada

¾Õ¼± ¿¬±¸¿¡ Æ÷ÇԵǾú´ø µÎ °úÇÐÀڵ鿡 ´ëÇÑ ÀÌ ÀÚÀüÀû »ç·Ê ¿¬±¸´Â °¢ °úÇÐÀÚÀÇ Æ÷·ÎÆÄÀÏÀ» ±â·ÏÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ ÇÁ·ÎÆÄÀϵéÀº ¹Ý±¸Á¶È­µÈ ¸é´ã ÇÁ·ÎÅäÄÝ°ú °¢ °úÇÐÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ À̸ÞÀÏ Á¶»ç¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ±¸¼ºµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ ÀÚ·á¼öÁýÀÇ ÇÙ½É ÁÖÁ¦´Â ÀÌ Çö´ëÀûÀÌ°í Æò°¡ÀûÀÎ °úÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ »óÈ£°ËÅäÇÑ ¿¬±¸ º¸°í¼­¸¦ ÃâÆÇÇÏ´Â Àç°ËÅä-¹ÝÀÀ-¼öÁ¤ °úÁ¤ÀÌ ´Ü¼øÈ÷ ¾ð¾îÀÇ ÁúÀ» Çâ»ó½ÃŲ´Ù°í ¹Ï´ÂÁö ȤÀº ½ÇÁ¦·Î °úÇÐÀ» º¯È­½ÃŲ´Ù°í ¹Ï´ÂÁö¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸´Â °ÍÀ̸ç, ±×µéÀÇ ÃÊÀÎÁöÀû Àνİú ½ÇÇà Á¶ÀýÀÌ ¾î¶»°Ô ±×µéÀÇ °úÇРŽ±¸¿Í Àú¼ú¿¡ À־ µå·¯³ª´ÂÁö¸¦ º¸·Á´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±× °úÇÐÀÚµéÀº Á¤º¸Á¦°øÀÚÀÌ¸ç µ¿½Ã¿¡ °øµ¿ÀúÀڷμ­ Âü¿©ÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÎ °úÇÐÀÚ´Â ¿¬±¸º¸°í¼­ÀÇ Àú¼ú¿Í ¼öÁ¤Àº ¹®ÀåÀ» ¸í·áÇÏ°Ô ÇÒ »Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ½ÇÁ¦·Î °úÇÐÀ» Çâ»ó½ÃŲ´Ù°í ¹Ï¾ú´Ù; ±×µéÀÇ Àý´ë·ÐÀÚ ¾ð¾î »ç¿ëÀº Ž±¸¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½Å³ä°ú °ü·ÃÀÖ°í °úÇÐÀû Áö½Ä¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½Å³ä°ú´Â °ü·Ã¾ø¾ú´Ù; ±×µéÀÇ Àú¼ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³íÆòÇϱâ´Â ±×µé·Î ÇÏ¿©±Ý ±×µéÀÇ °úÇРŽ±¸¿Í ¿¬±¸ º¸°í¼­¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ°í °¨½ÃÇÏ°í ÀçÁ¶Á¤Çϵµ·Ï ÇÏ¿´´Ù; ÀÚ¿¬°ú ÀÚ¿¬Çö»ó¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áö½ÄÀÇ ÀüÅëÀû Çü½ÄÀº ¹°¸®Àû ÀΰúÀ²º¸´Ù´Â ¹¦»ç¸¦ °­Á¶ÇÏ´Â °¡Ä¡ÀÖ´Â Á¤º¸ ÃâóÀÌ´Ù.
This autobiographical case study of two scientists involved in earlier studies documents a profile of each scientist. These profiles were used to develop semi structured interview protocols and email surveys for each scientist. The central issues of these data collections were whether these modern, evaluativist scientists believe that the review react revise process of publishing a peer reviewed research report simply improves the quality of the language or actually changes the science, and how their metacognitive awareness and executive control were demonstrated in their science inquiry and science writing. The scientists served both as informants and coauthors. Both scientists believed that writing and revising research reports improved the science as well as the clarity of the text; that their use of absolutist language related to their beliefs about inquiry and not about science knowledge; that addressing comments about their writing forced them to assess, monitor, and regulate their science inquiries and research reports; and that traditional forms of knowledge about nature and natural events were valuable information sources that stress description rather than physical causality
----------------------------------------------------------------------

°úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾çÀÇ µµÀüµé: 2¼¼´ë ÀÎÁö°úÇÐÀÇ °üÁ¡À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ
Title: The Challenges of Scientific Literacy: From the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science.

Authors: Klein, Perry D.1 pklein@uwo.ca
1The University of Western Ontario, Canada

ÀÎÁö °úÇÐÀÇ ÃÖ±Ù °æÇâµéÀº °úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾çÀ» µµ´ÞÇϱ⠽±°Ô ¸¸µéÁö´Â ¾ÊÁö¸¸, ±× µµÀüµéÀ» ´õ¿í Çؼ®°¡´ÉÇϵµ·Ï ÇÏ´Â ½ÇõµéÀ» ¸¸µé°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀüÅëÀûÀ¸·Î, ÀÎÁö °úÇÐÀÚµéÀº Áö½ÄÀ» °íÀüÀû °³³äµé·Î ±¸¼ºµÈ ¸íÁ¦µéÀÇ ÁýÇÕÀ¸·Î, »ç»óÀ» ³í¸®Àû Ãß·ÐÀ¸·Î, ¾ð¾î¸¦ ¼¼°è¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹®ÀÚÀû Ç¥ÇöÀ¸·Î °£ÁÖÇÑ´Ù. ±×µéÀº µ¿ÀÏÇÑ ¿Ü¿¬Àû Ư¼ºµéÀ» °úÇÐ ¹®Àå »Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ÀÎÁö¿¡µµ Àû¿ë½ÃŲ´Ù. ´ëÁ¶ÀûÀ¸·Î, ¸¹Àº Çö´ë ÀÎÁö°úÇÐÀÚµéÀº Áö½ÄÀ» ¾Ö¸ÅÇÏ°í »óȲÀûÀÎ °³³äµéÀÇ ÁýÇÕÀ¸·Î, »ç»óÀ» Çü½ÄÀûÀ¸·Î Çü¼ºµÈ´Ù±âº¸´Ù´Â Áö°¢ÀûÀ¸·Î Çü¼ºµÇ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î, ¾ð¾î¸¦ ´ë°Ô ÀºÀ¯ÀûÀÌ°í ´ãÈ­ÀûÀ̶ó°í °£ÁÖÇÑ´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ °üÁ¡¿¡¼­´Â ÀÎÁöÀû ¹¦»çÀÇ Ç¥ÇöÀû Ư¼ºµéÀÌ »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î °úÇÐ ¹®ÀåÀÇ ¿Ü¿¬Àû ¹¦»ç¿Í´Â ´Ù¸£´Ù°í º»´Ù. °úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾ç ±³À°Àº ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ Â÷ÀÌÁ¡À» ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº ÇлýÀ» µ½´Â ½ÇõµéÀ» ÅëÇÏ¿© ¿¬°áÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù; ¾Ö¸ÅÇÑ ÀÎÁö ±¸Á¶¹°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °íÀüÀû °³³äµé Çü¼ºÇϱâ, Áö°¢ÀûÀ¸·Î ºÎ¿©µÈ Á¶ÀÛµéÀ» ÅëÇÏ¿© Çü½ÄÀûÀ¸·Î Ÿ´çÇÑ Ã߸®Çϱ⿡ ´Ù´Ù¸£±â, ±×¸®°í ¿¬¼³Çü½Ä°ú À̾߱âü ¾ð¾î¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ¹®¼­Çü½Ä ¼³¸íÇϱâ.
Recent trends in cognitive science have not made scientific literacy easier to attain, but they have made the practices through which educators meet its challenges more interpretable. Traditionally, cognitive scientists viewed knowledge as a set of propositions comprised of classical concepts, thought as logical inference and language as a literal representation of the world. They attributed the same denotative characteristics to cognition as to science text. In contrast, many contemporary cognitive scientists view knowledge as comprised of fuzzy and contextual concepts, thought as perceptually rather than formally grounded, and language as largely metaphorical and narrative. In this view the expressive characteristics of cognitive representations differ from the relatively denotative characteristics of science texts. Science literacy education bridges this difference through practices that help students: build classical concepts on a fuzzy cognitive architecture, achieve formally valid reasoning using perceptually driven operations, and construct written explanations and arguments using speech‐like and narrative language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Áßµî °úÇÐÀÇ Àú¼ú·ÎºÎÅÍ ¹è¿ì±â: ¸î °¡Áö ÀÌ·ÐÀû ¹× ½ÇõÀû ½Ã»çÁ¡
Title: Learning from Writing in Secondary Science: Some theoretical and practical implications.

Authors: Prain, Vaughan1 v.prain@latrobe.edu.au
1La Trobe University, Australia

°úÇÐ ÇнÀÀÚµéÀÇ ´ãÈ­ ±ÔÄ¢, ±Ù°Å, ÁÖÀå, °úÇÐÀû Ž±¸¿Í °á°úµéÀÇ ÀüÅëÀûÀΠǥÇö ¹æ½ÄµéÀ» Àß ¾Ë¾Æ¾ßÇÑ´Ù´Â ÀνÄÀº Á¡Á¡ ´Ã¾î³ª°í ÀÖ´Ù. µ¿½Ã¿¡, ÀϺΠ°úÇб³À° ¿¬±¸ÀÚµéÀº ÇлýµéÀÌ °è¾à, Çظí, »õ·Î¿î ÀÌÇصéÀÇ ÅëÇÕ-Àú¼úÀÌ Áö½ÄÀ» Çü¼ºÇÏ°í ¸í·áÈ­Çϴµ¥ µµ±¸·Î¼­ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â-À» °¡´ÉÇÏ°Ô ÇÏ´Â ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·ÎÀÇ ±Û¾²±â ±âȸ°¡ ¿ä±¸µÈ´Ù°í ÁÖÀåÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. °¢°¢ÀÇ ÀÇÁ¦´Â ÇлýÀÇ ±Û¾²±â°¡ °úÇÐ ÇнÀÀ» ÁöÁöÇÑ´Ù´Â °­·ÂÇÑ »õ °üÁ¡µéÀ» ÀÏÀ¸Å°°í ÀÖ´Ù; ±×·¯³ª ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ÀÌ·ÐÀû ½Ã»çÁ¡µéÀ», ƯÈ÷ ½Å±â¼ú µµÀÔ ¹× ´ÙÁß¾ç½Ä ÇнÀ ȯ°æ »óȲ¿¡¼­´Â, º¸´Ù ¸í·áÈ­ÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ ¹®Çå°ú ´Ù¸¥ ÃÖ±Ù ¿¬±¸¸®ºäµéÀ» ¹¦»çÇϸ鼭 ÀÌ ±Û¿¡¼­´Â °úÇÐ ÇнÀÀ» À§ÇÑ Çлý ±Û¾²±âÀÇ À̷аú ½ÇÁ¦¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ´Ù¾çÇÑ ½Ã»çÁ¡µéÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÑ´Ù.
There is growing recognition that learners in science need to become familiar with the discourse rules, rationale, claims, and procedures of traditional ways of representing scientific inquiry and findings. At the same time, some researchers in science education have claimed that students also need opportunities to write in ways that enable engagement, clarification, and consolidation of emerging understandings, where writing is used as a tool for shaping and clarifying knowledge. Each agenda has generated powerful new insights into the conditions under which, and the strategies whereby, student writing can support learning in science; but there is a need to clarify further the theoretical implications of this research, especially in the context of new technology‐mediated, multi‐modal learning environments. Drawing on this literature and other recent reviews, this paper identifies various implications in relation to the theory and practice of future student writing for learning in science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

°úÇб³À°¿¡¼­ ½ÇÇè¾È³»¼­ Àú¼úÇϱâ: Àú¼úÇϱâÀÇ ¿µÇâ, À¯Çü, ±×¸®°í ûÁß
Title: Writing Experiment Manuals in Science Education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience.

Authors: Rijlaarsdam, Gert1,2 g.c.w.rijlaarsdam@uva.nl, Couzijn, Michel1, Janssen, Tanja1, Braaksma, Martine1,3, Kieft, Marleen1
1University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Utrecht University, The Netherlands
3University of California, USA

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â 9Çгâ ÇлýµéÀÌ °ø±â°¡ °ø°£À» Â÷ÁöÇÏ´ÂÁö¸¦ Ž»öÇÏ´Â °£´ÜÇÑ ¹°¸® Á¶»çÈ°µ¿À» ¹¦»çÇÏ´Â Çлý¿ë ½ÇÇè¾È³»¼­¸¦ Àú¼úÇÏ¿´´Ù. µ¿·áÇлýµéÀº ÀÌ ¾È³»¼­¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´°í ±× °úÁ¤µéÀ» ³ìÈ­ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸î °¡Áö ½ÇÇè »óȲ¿¡¼­ ÀÌ ºñµð¿ÀÅ×ÀÌÇÁµéÀÌ (½ÇÇè¾È³»¼­¸¦ ¸¸µå´Â)ÀúÀÚµéÀ» À§Çؼ­ »ó¿µµÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×¸®°í³ª¼­ ±×µéÀº ½ÇÇè¾È³»¼­¸¦ Àç±â¼úÇÏ¿´´Ù. 3ÁÖÈÄ ±×µéÀº µ¿·á¿¡°Ô ¾î¶»°Ô ½ÇÇè¾È³»¼­¸¦ ÀÛ¼ºÇÏ´ÂÁö¸¦ ¼³¸íÇÏ´Â Á¶¾ðÆíÁö¸¦ ÀÛ¼ºÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÎ ±âÁØ(Àç±â¼úµÈ ¾È³»¼­¿Í Á¶¾ðÆíÁö)Àº Àú¼ú°¡µéÀÌ µ¶ÀÚµéÀÇ ±×µéÀÇ ¾È³»¼­¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½Ç½Ã°£ ¹ÝÀÀÀ» º¼ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Á¶°ÇÀÌ ±×µéÀÌ ¼Ò°³ÇÏ°íÀÚÇÏ´Â ¹°¸® ÁÖÁ¦ÀÇ ÀÌÇØ »Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ½ÇÇè¾È³»¼­ÀÇ À¯Çü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÌÇØ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» Áشٴ °ÍÀ» ¸í¹éÈ÷ º¸¿©ÁØ´Ù.
In this study, Grade 9 students wrote experiment manuals for their peers describing a simple physics investigation to explore whether air takes space. Peers executed these manuals and their processes were videotaped. In several experimental conditions, these videotapes were played back for authors. Then they had to rewrite the experiment manual. Three weeks later they wrote a letter of advice, explaining to peers how to write an experiment manual. Both measures (rewritten manuals and letter of advice) showed clear effects of the condition in which writers saw real time readers¡¯ feedback on their own manual, on understanding of the genre of an experiment manual, as well as on the understanding of physics topics introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

³íÀïÀ» °¡¸£Ä¡±â À§ÇÑ ÇнÀ: ¿¬±¸¿Í °úÇмö¾÷¿¡¼­ÀÇ °³¹ß
Title: Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.

Authors: Simon, Shirley1 s.simon@ioe.ac.uk, Erduran, Sibel2, Osborne, Jonathan3
1Institute of Education, University of London, UK
2University of Bristol, UK
3King's College London, UK

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â Áßµî°úÇб³½Ç¿¡¼­ÀÇ ³íÀï ±³¼ö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¶»ç¿¡ ÃÊÁ¡À» µÎ°í ÀÖ´Ù. 1³â ÀÌ»óÀÇ ±â°£µ¿¾È ·±´ø Áö¿ª Çб³µé·ÎºÎÅÍ ¿Â 12¸íÀÇ ±³»çÁý´ÜÀÌ °úÇÐÀû »óȲ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³íÀïÀ» °¡¸£Ä¡´Âµ¥ °üÇÑ ÀÚ·á¿Í ¼ö¾÷¹æ·« °³¹ßÀ» À§ÇÑ ÀÏ·ÃÀÇ ¿÷¼¥¿¡ Âü¿©ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 1³âÀÇ ½ÃÀÛ°ú ¸¶Áö¸·¿¡ ±³»çµéÀÌ ³íÀïÀ» ½ÃµµÇÑ ¼ö¾÷¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³ìÀ½°ú ³ìÈ­¸¦ ÅëÇØ ÀڷḦ ¼öÁýÇÏ¿´´Ù. ³íÀïÀÇ ÁúÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇØ Åø¹Î(Toulmin)ÀÇ ³íÀï À¯ÇüÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ÃßÃâÇÑ ºÐ¼® µµ±¸¸¦ °³¹ßÇÏ¿© Àû¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. 1³â°£¿¡ °ÉÃÄ ÁøÇàµÈ ±³»çµéÀÇ ³íÀïÀ» º¸¸é, ±³»çµéÀÇ ³íÀï »ç¿ë À¯ÇüÀº º¯È­ º»¼º°ú ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î ±³»ç Ư¡ÀûÀ̾ú´Ù. ÇâÈÄ Àü¹® °³¹ß ÇÁ·Î±×·¥¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¤º¸¸¦ ¾ò±âÀ§ÇØ ´Ù¼¸ ±³»çµéÀÇ ³ìÈ­»çº»(¼¼¸íÀº Áß´ëÇÑ º¯È­¸¦ º¸ÀÌ°í µÎ¸íÀº º¯È­¸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù)ÀÌ ³íÀïÀ» ÃËÁøÇÏ°í Áö¿øÇß´ø ±³»çµéÀÇ ±¸¼ú Ç¥ÇöÀÇ Æ¯Â¡À» º¸´Ù ÀÚ¼¼È÷ ¹àÇô³»±â À§ÇØ ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù. ¸ðµç ±³»çµéÀÌ ³íÀï¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÈ ´Ù¾çÇÑ °úÁ¤µéÀ» Á¶ÀåÇÏ·Á°í ½ÃµµÇß´Ù; ¼ö¾÷¿¡¼­ °¡Àå ¿ì¼öÇÑ ³íÀï(Åø¹ÎÀÇ ³íÀï À¯Çü ºÐ¼®)À» Æ÷ÇÔÇÑ ±³»ç ¿ª½Ã ±×ÀÇ ±³¼ö¿¡ ÀÖ¾î »óÀ§ ´Ü°è °úÁ¤µéÀ» Á¶ÀåÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±³»çÀÇ ³íÀï ÃËÁø¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºÐ¼®Àº ÇöÁ÷ ÀÚ·áµéÀ» °³¹ßÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ¾È³»¿Í °æÇèÀÌ ÀûÀÎ ±³»çµéÀÇ Àü¹®¼º °³¹ß¿¡ ÀÖ¾î ÇнÀ Àå¾Ö¸¦ ¹àÈ÷´Âµ¥ ÀÖ¾î µµ¿òÀ» ÁØ´Ù.
The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a 1‐year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio‐recording and video recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement argumentation. To assess the quality of argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin¡¯s argument pattern were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Teachers¡¯ use of argumentation developed across the year, the pattern of use was teacher specific, as was the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two showing no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers¡¯ oral contributions that facilitated and supported argumentation. All teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in argumentation; teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of argumentation (Toulmin¡¯s argument pattern analysis) also encouraged higher order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers¡¯ facilitation of argumentation has helped to guide the development of in‐service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ÁßµîÇб³ ¼¼Æ÷ »ý¹°ÇÐ ¼ö¾÷¿¡¼­ ¡®¹è¿ì±â À§ÇØ ¾²±â¡¯ ¹æ·«: È¥ÇÕ ¹æ¹ý ¿¬±¸
Title: Writing‐to‐learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: A mixed method study.

Authors: Hohenshell, Liesl M.1 hohenshell.l@osu.edu, Hand, Brian2
1Ohio State University, USA
2University of Iowa, USA

¡®¹è¿ì±â À§ÇØ ¾²±â¡¯ ¹æ·«Àº ÇнÀÀ» °­È­ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸³ª, ¾²±â¸¦ À§ÇÏ ±³À° Áö¿øÀÇ ¹¦»ç¿Í ÇÔ²² Á¦°øµÈ Ưº°ÇÑ ¾²±â °úÁ¦¿¡ Âü¿©ÇÔÀ¸·Î¼­ ¾ò¾îÁö´Â ÇнÀÀÇ Áú¿¡ °üÇÑ º¸´Ù ½ÇÇèÀû ¿¬±¸µµ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù. ÀÌ º¸°í¼­´Â Áö³­ ¿¬±¸¸¦ Ž±¸, »çȸÀû ÇùÀÇ¿Í ¾²±â ¹æ·«À» ¿¬°áÇÑ´Ù. Æò°¡´Â µÎ°¡Áö ´Ù¸¥ ¾²±â ¹æ½Ä¿¡ µû¶ó Àû¿ëµÇ¾ú´Ù: ÀüÅëÀû ¹æ½Ä(ÅëÁ¦Áý´Ü) ȤÀº °úÇÐ ¾²±â ¹ß°ß¹ýÀ» ÀÌ¿äÇÑ ºñÀüÅëÀû ¹æ½Ä(SWHÁý´Ü)À¸·Î ½ÇÇè º¸°í¼­¿Í, Ž±¸ È°µ¿¿¡¼­ Ž»öÇÑ °³³äµé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿ä¾à º¸°í¼­. ¿¬±¸ °á°ú, ¿ä¾àº¸°í¼­ ÀÛ¼º¿¡ ÀÖ¾î SWH Áý´Ü ÇлýµéÀÌ °³³äÀû Áú¹®¿¡ ´ëÇØ º¸´Ù ³ªÀº ¼ºÃ븦 º¸¿´°í, µÎ °¡Áö ¾²±â ¹æ½Ä¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ¸í·áÇÑ »ç°í°¡ ¿ä±¸µÈ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÀνÄÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ±×µéÀÌ ¾²±â È°µ¿À» ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ» ÇнÀÀ¸·Î¼­ ¹¦»çÇÏ·Á´Â °æÇâÀÌ ÅëÁ¦Áý´Ü°ú ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© º¸´Ù ¸¹ÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. SWH¿Í ¿ä¾àº¸°í¼­¸¦ ÀÛ¼ºÇÑ ¿©ÇлýÀÌ °¡Àå ¿ì¼öÇÑ ¼ºÃ븦 º¸¿´´Ù.
Writing‐to‐learn techniques can enhance learning, yet a need remains for more empirical research on the quality of learning that results from engaging in particular writing tasks with description of the instructional support for writing situated in context. This report builds on past research linking inquiry, social negotiation, and writing strategies to student learning assessed for recall and conceptual understanding. Assessments were administered after two different writing types: laboratory reports written in either a conventional (Control group) or a non‐traditional format using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH group) and a summary report of concepts explored in the inquiry activities. Results following summary report writing indicated SWH students performed better on conceptual questions, recognized distinct thinking was required by the two writing types, and were more likely to describe learning as they were writing compared with Control group students. Females who used the SWH and wrote summary reports to peers benefited most.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
½ÇÅÂ¿Í °¡´É¼º: ¾ð¾î¿Í °úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾ç
Title: Current Realities and Future Possibilities: Language and science literacy empowering research and informing instruction.

Authors: Yore, Larry D.1 lyore@uvic.ca, Treagust, David F.2
:1University of Victoria, Canada
2Curtin University, Australia

ÀÌ ¸¶Áö¸· ³í¹®¿¡¼­, ¿ì¸®´Â ÀÌ ¹®Çå°ú ±¹Á¦È¸ÀÇ-¼­µÎ¿¡ ¡°¾ÆÀÏ·£µå ȸÀÇ¡±·Î ¾ð±ÞÇÑ-¿¡¼­ ¹ßÇ¥ÇÑ ³»¿ëÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ Á¦±âµÈ °úÇÐ ¹× ¾ð¾î ¿¬±¸¿Í ½ÇõÀ» °£·«È÷ °ËÅäÇÏ°í Á¾ÇÕÇÏ¿´´Ù. ȸÀÇ¿¡¼­ ¼Ò°³µÈ ³í¹®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¾ÇÕ°ú ÇöÀå¿¡¼­ °è¼ÓµÈ Åä·Ð, ¾î¶»°Ô ÀÌ·± °øÇåÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇß´ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ °ßÇظ¦ Á¦°øÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ ÇÙ½É ÁÖÁ¦µé-°úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾çÀÇ Á¤ÀÇ; ÇнÀ, ´ãÈ­, Àбâ¿Í ¾²±âÀÇ ¸ðÇü°ú ±×µéÀÇ ¾Ï¹¬ÀûÀÎ ±³À°Àû °¡Á¤µé; °úÇÐÇϱâ¿Í °¡¸£Ä¡±â ¹× ¹è¿ò¿¡¼­ ´ãÈ­ÀÇ ¿ªÇÒµé; ¾ð¾î¿Í °úÇб³À°ÀÇ ÇöÇà °³Çõ¿¡ À־ ±³»ç±³À°°ú Àü¹®¼º °³¹ßÀÇ Çʿ伺-Àº ±³¼ö¿Í ÇнÀ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ º¸´Ù Æø³Ð°í »ý»êÀûÀÎ Çй®°ú º¸´Ù ±í°í dzºÎÇÑ ÀÌÇظ¦ À§ÇØ °øÇåÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ³ë·Â°ú °ü·ÃµÈ ´ÙÀ½ ³× °¡Áö »õ·Î¿î °í·Áµé(°¢°¢ ¿¬±¸¹®ÇåÀ» ÅëÇØ Àß Çü¼ºµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Â)¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³íÀÇÀÇ Ãâ¹ßÁ¡À» Á¦°øÇÑ´Ù: °úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾çÀÇ Çö´ëÀû °üÁ¡À» À§ÇÑ Áö¿ø °³¹ß, °úÇÐÇнÀ¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÃÊÀÎÁöÀÇ ¿ªÇÐ, Áö½Ä ±¸¼º°ú °úÇÐÀû ¼Ò¾ç¿¡ À־ ´ÙÁß Ç¥ÇöÀÇ ¿ªÇÒ, ±×¸®°í ±³»ç±³À°°ú Àü¹®¼º °³¹ß ÇÁ·Î±×·¥¿¡ º¸´Ù ÁýÁßµÈ ¿ä±¸.
In this final article, we briefly review and synthesize the science and language research and practice that arose from the current literature and presentations at an international conference, referred to as the first ¡°Island Conference¡±. We add to the synthesis of the articles the conference deliberations and on‐going discussions of the field and also offer our views as to how such contributions can take place. These central issues—the definition of science literacy; the models of learning, discourse, reading, and writing and their underlying pedagogical assumptions; the roles of discourse in doing, teaching, and learning science; and the demands on teacher education and professional development in the current reforms in language and science education—provide points of departure for discussion of four possible new considerations to research in this field of endeavour that could contribute to a broader and productive scholarship and deeper and enriched understanding of both teaching and learning. These considerations, each from well‐established fields of research literature, are the need to develop support for a contemporary view of science literacy, the role of metacognition in science learning generally, the role of multiple representations in knowledge building and science literacy, and the need for more focused teacher education and professional development programmes.

÷ºÎ
IJSE28(2-3).hwp

ÀÓ¼º¹Î
´ë±¸´ëÇб³

°úÇй®È­±³À°¿¬±¸¼Ò