JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Influences of Cognitive Conflict, Situational Interest, and Learning Process Variables on Conceptual Change in Cognitive onflict Strategy with an Alternative Hypothesis
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Influences of Cognitive Conflict, Situational Interest, and Learning Process Variables on Conceptual Change in Cognitive onflict Strategy with an Alternative Hypothesis
Kang, Hun-Sik; Choi, Sook-Yeong; Noh, Tae-Hee;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
In this study, we investigated the influences of cognitive conflict and situational interest induced by a discrepant event and an alternative hypothesis, attention and state learning strategies on conceptual change. A preconception test was administered to 486 seventh graders. They also completed the questionnaires of cognitive response and situational interest to a discrepant event before/after presenting an alternative hypothesis. After learning the concept of density with a CAI program as conceptual change intervention, the tests of attention, state learning strategies, and conceptual understanding were administered as posttests. Analyses of the results for 197 students having misconceptions about density revealed that post-cognitive conflict was significantly higher than pre-cognitive conflict. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the test scores of pre-situational interest and post-situational interest. Pre-cognitive conflict only exerted a direct effect on post-cognitive conflict, while post-cognitive conflict exerted a direct effect and Journal of the Korean Chemical Society an indirect effect via attention on conceptual understanding. Both pre- and post-situational interests were found to influence on conceptual understanding via attention. Attention had influences positively on deep learning strategy and negatively on surface learning strategy. There was a relatively small effect of state learning strategies on conceptual understanding.
 Keywords
Alternative Hypothesis;Cognitive Conflict;Situational Interest;Attention;State Learning Strategy;Conceptual Change;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
연소 개념 학습에서 변칙 사례에 의한 인지 갈등 및 상황 흥미가 개념 변화 과정에 미치는 영향,최숙영;강석진;노태희;

한국과학교육학회지, 2008. vol.28. 8, pp.779-785
2.
밀도 학습에서 인식론적 신념이 개념변화 과정에 미치는 영향,강훈식;김민영;노태희;

한국과학교육학회지, 2007. vol.27. 5, pp.412-420
3.
학습자의 인지적 특성이 개념 변화에 미치는 영향,강석진;박지애;최숙영;노태희;

대한화학회지, 2008. vol.52. 5, pp.561-568 crossref(new window)
4.
오류 상황을 포함하는 논증 과제 제시를 통한 초등 과학수업의 효과 및 특징,임희준;정인순;

한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육, 2014. vol.33. 1, pp.195-205 crossref(new window)
1.
Effects of Scientific Argumentation on Argument Tasks with Incorrect Alternative Ideas in Elementary Science Classes, Elementary Science Education, 2014, 33, 1, 195  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
이영직; 권재술. 한국과학교육학회지. 1993, 13, 310

2.
권재술; 이경호; 김연수. 한국과학교육학회지. 2003, 23, 574

3.
김범기; 권재술. 한국과학교육학회지. 1995, 15, 472

4.
Limon, M. Learning and Instruction. 2001, 11, 357 crossref(new window)

5.
Niaz, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1995, 32, 959 crossref(new window)

6.
Sinatra, G. M.; Pintrich, P. R. In Intentional conceptual change; Sinatra, G. M.; Pintrich, P. R., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, U. S. A., 2003; p 1

7.
강석진; 이정민; 강훈식; 차정호; 노태희. 교육과정평가연 구. 2006, 9, 77

8.
이경호. 고등학생의 물리 개념변화에 미치는 인지갈등, 학습동기와 학습전략의 영향; 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문, 2000

9.
강훈식; 김민경; 차정호; 노태희. 한국과학교육학회지. 2006, 26, 723

10.
Park, J.; Kim, I.; Kim, M.; Lee, M. Analysis of the students' process of confirmation and falsification of hypotheses in electrostatics; Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association. Adelaide, Australia, 1997

11.
박종원. 한국과학교육학회지. 2001, 21, 609

12.
강훈식; 곽진하; 김유정; 노태희. 대한화학회지. 2007, 51, 56 crossref(new window)

13.
Chen, A.; Darst, P. W.; Pangrazi, R. P. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2001, 71, 383 crossref(new window)

14.
Palmer, D. International Journal of Science Education. 2004, 26, 895 crossref(new window)

15.
Cavallo, A. M. L. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1996, 33, 625 crossref(new window)

16.
Kang, S.; Scharmann, L. C.; Noh, T.; Koh, H. International Journal of Science Education. 2005, 27, 1037 crossref(new window)

17.
Case, J.; Marshall, D. Studies in Higher Education. 2004, 29, 605 crossref(new window)

18.
Kang, S.; Scharmann, L. C.; Noh, T. Research in Science Education. 2004, 34, 71 crossref(new window)

19.
Keller, J. M. IMMS: Instructional material motivation survey; Florida State University, 1993

20.
김계수. AMOS 구조방정식 모형 분석; (주) 데이터솔루션: 서울, 한국, 2004

21.
Schumacker, R. E.; Lomax, R. G. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling; Erlbaum: Mahwah, U. S. A., 2004

22.
Keller, J. M. International Journal of Educational Technology. 1999, 1, 7

23.
Pintrich, P. R. In New perspectives on conceptual change; Schnotz, W.; Vosniadou, S.; Carretero, M., Eds.; Elsevier Science Ltd.: Oxford, U. K., 1999; p 40

24.
Greene, B. A.; Miller, R. B. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1996, 21, 181 crossref(new window)

25.
Gregoire, M.; Ashton, P.; Algina, J. The role of prior and perceived ability in influencing the relationship of goal orientation to cognitive engagement and academic achievement; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453229, 2001

26.
노태희; 김경순; 박현주; 전경문. 한국과학교육학회지. 2006, 26, 2321

27.
Middlebrooks, A. E. The development of goal conceptualization in activity; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467837, 2002

28.
김정석; 권혜련; 장남기. 한국과학교육학회지. 1997, 17, 103

29.
Nolen, S. B.; Haladyna, T. M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1990, 27, 115 crossref(new window)

30.
Hertzog, C.; Schaie, K. W. Psychology and Aging. 1986, 1, 159 crossref(new window)

31.
Hong, E. Journal of Educational Research. 1998, 91, 148 crossref(new window)

32.
김대식; 노미라. 과학교육연구논총. 1994, 10, 13

33.
권난주; 권재술. 한국과학교육학회지. 2004, 24, 216