JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Analysis of the Level of Cognitive Demands about Concepts of Elements, the Periodic Table, and Atoms on Science 2 Textbooks in Junior High School (I)
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Analysis of the Level of Cognitive Demands about Concepts of Elements, the Periodic Table, and Atoms on Science 2 Textbooks in Junior High School (I)
Kang, Soon-Hee; Bang, Da-Mi; Kim, Sun-Jung;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the cognitive demands level of the description about `element`, `periodic table`, and `atom` on the `science 2` textbooks by the 2007 revised curriculum. The three types of CAT (Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy) have been used to analyze the cognitive demands level of those contents on the 6 kinds of `science 2` textbooks. The cognitive demands level about `elements` on many textbooks is a late concrete operational stage, because the descriptions of `element` are pure substances or no more split into anything simpler substances. That cognitive demands level about one textbook is a early formal operational stage, because the descriptions `element` are a substance of one kind of atom. The cognitive demands level of `periodic table` on many textbooks is a late concrete operational stage, because the descriptions about `periodic table` are the hierarchical classification for the categorizing reality. And the cognitive demands level of `periodic table` is a early formal operational stage, because the descriptions about `periodic table` are a collection of `families` or two-way gradation of elements. That cognitive demands level about one textbook is a late formal operational stage, because the descriptions of `periodic table` are a complex classificatory structure linking atomic structure. The cognitive demands level about `atom` is a early formal operational stage because of the descriptions as "atoms have structure, some atoms are the same, or others are different".
 Keywords
Periodic table;Element;Atom;CAT;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
중학교 과학2 교과서에 서술된 이온 결합 화합물과 분자 내용이 요구하는 인지 수준 분석(제II보),강순희;방담이;김선정;

대한화학회지, 2012. vol.56. 6, pp.739-750 crossref(new window)
2.
'과학1' 중학교 교과서의 물질의 상태 변화와 분자 운동 내용이 요구하는 인지 수준 분석(제III보),박지은;박예슬;강순희;

대한화학회지, 2013. vol.57. 5, pp.640-655 crossref(new window)
3.
과학 수업에서 논리적 사고력 강화 탐구 교수 전략이 중학교 1학년 학생들의 논리적 사고력에 미치는 효과,홍혜인;강순희;

대한화학회지, 2014. vol.58. 6, pp.667-680 crossref(new window)
4.
전해질과 이온 개념에 대한 중학생들의 개념변화 유형,신성희;박현주;양기열;

대한화학회지, 2016. vol.60. 1, pp.48-58 crossref(new window)
5.
용해와 용액 개념에 대한 학습발달과정 조사,노태희;이재원;양찬호;강석진;강훈식;

한국과학교육학회지, 2016. vol.36. 2, pp.295-302 crossref(new window)
1.
The Effect of Inquiry Teaching Strategy Enhancing the Logical Thinking Skill through the Science Teaching about the 1st Year Students of the Junior High School, Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 2014, 58, 6, 667  crossref(new windwow)
2.
Investigation of Learning Progression for Dissolution and Solution Concepts, Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 2016, 36, 2, 295  crossref(new windwow)
3.
Analysis of the Level of Cognitive Demands about Concepts of the Changes of State and Kinetic Theory on 'Science 1' Textbooks in Junior High School (III), Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 2013, 57, 5, 640  crossref(new windwow)
4.
Types of Middle School Students' Conceptual Change on the Concept of Electrolyte and Ion, Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 2016, 60, 1, 48  crossref(new windwow)
5.
Analysis of the Level of Cognitive Demands about Concepts of Ionic Compounds and Molecule on Science 2 Textbooks in Junior High School (II), Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 2012, 56, 6, 739  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Lawson, A. E.; Renner, J. W. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1975, 12(4), 347. crossref(new window)

2.
Ingle, R. B.; Shayer, M. Education in Chemistry 1971, 8(5), 182.

3.
Shayer, M. Sch. Sci. Rev. 1972, 186(54), 26.

4.
Shayer, M.; Kchemann, D. E.; Wylam, H. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1976, 46, 164. crossref(new window)

5.
Shayer, M.; Wylam, H.; Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1978, 48, 62. crossref(new window)

6.
Shayer, M.; Studies in Science Education, Leeds. 1978, 5, 115. crossref(new window)

7.
Shayer, M.; Adey, P. Towards a Science of Science Teaching; Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.: Oxford, London, U.K., 1981, 1983, 1987(twice), 1989; pp 11, 69-103, 91, 92-97.

8.
Ireland, A. J. The feasibility of matching the Piagetian stages of cognitive development of children, to the intellectual demand within a science curriculum, as an aid to curriculum development.; M. Sc.: York, U. K., 1980.

9.
Shayer, M.; Kchemann, D. E.; Wylam, H. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1976, 46, 164. crossref(new window)

10.
Adey, P. International Journal of Science Education 1988, 10(2), 121. crossref(new window)

11.
Adey, P.; Shayer, M.; Yates, C. Thinking science: The curriculum materials of the Cognitive Acceleration Through Science Education(CASE) project Teacher's guide; Mcmillan Education Ltd.: London, U.K., 1989.

12.
Adey, P.; Shayer, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1990, 27(3), 267. crossref(new window)

13.
Shayer, M.; Adey, P. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29(1), 81-92. crossref(new window)

14.
Adey, P.; Shyer, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29(10), 1101. crossref(new window)

15.
Shayer, M.; Adey, P. S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1993, 30(4), 351. crossref(new window)

16.
Adey, P.; Shayer, M. Cognition and Instruction 1993, 11(1), 1. crossref(new window)

17.
Adey, P. Research in Science Education 1995, 25(1), 101. crossref(new window)

18.
Iqbal, H. M.; Shayer, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2000, 37(3), 259. crossref(new window)

19.
Adey, P. Research in Science Education 2005, 35, 3. crossref(new window)

20.
Adey, P.; Shayer, M.; Yates, C. Thinking science : The curriculum materials of the Cognitive Acceleration Through Science Education(CASE) project Teacher's guide, 3rd ed.; Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.: London, U.K., 2001.

21.
Choi, B., et al. Thinking science (Trans.), 3rd ed.; Freeacademi: Seoul, 2011.

22.
Choi, B.; Hur, M. J. Kor. Assoc. Res. Sci. Educ. 1987, 7(1), 19.

23.
Choi, B.; Choi, M.; Nam, J.; Lee, S. J. Kor. Assoc. Res. Sci. Educ. 2002, 22(3), 422.

24.
Choi, B.; Han, H.; Kang, S.; Lee, S.; Kang, S.; Park, J.; Nam, J. J. Kor. Assoc. Res. Sci. Educ. 2002, 22(4), 837.

25.
Kang, S. H.; Park, J. Y. Chemical Education 1993, 20(1), 42.

26.
Kang, S. H. Cognitive Development of Students and Curriculum Demand of Science Contents in Science Teaching Strategy. Ewha Womans University, Research Institute of Curriculum Instruction, Education Series, Seromoonhwasa, Press: Seoul, 2002; pp 25, 27-32, 34-38, 40-48.

27.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2007-79, Science Curriculum. Daehan Textbook Publishing: Seoul, Korea, 2007.

28.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2007-79, Junior Highschool Curriculum Commentary, Daehan Textbook Publishing: Seoul, Korea, 2007.

29.
Nuffield Science 13-16 Harlow, Essex: Longman, U.K., 1981.

30.
Frank, D. V.; Little, J. G.; Miller, S. Chemical Interactions; Pearson Education Inc.: New Jersey, U.S.A., 2009; p 12-21.

31.
Wysession, M.; Frank, D.; Yancopoulos, S. Physical Science: Concepts in Action; Pearson Education Inc.: New Jersey, U.S.A., 2009; pp 98-155.

32.
Hsu, T. Foundations of Physical Science; CPO Science: MA, U.S.A., 2005; pp 309-324.

33.
Hsu, T. Physics A First Course; CPO Science: NH, U.S.A., 2005; pp 217-237.

34.
Borgford, C.; Champagne, A.; Cuevas, M.; Dumas, L.; Lamb, W. G.; Vonderbrink, S. A. Physical Science; Holt, Rinehart and Wingston: Texas, U.S.A., 2007; pp 334-359.

35.
Hewitt, P. G.; Lyons, S.; Suchocki, J.; Yeh, J. Conceptual Integrated Science; Pearson Education Inc.: San Francisco, U.S.A., 2007; pp 167-189, 228-240.

36.
Dobson, K.; Holman, J.; Roberts, M. Physical Science; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: Texas, U.S.A., 2008; pp 110-173.

37.
Trefil, J.; Calvo, R. A.; Cutler, M. S. Physical Science; McDougal Littell, a division of Houghton Mifflin Company: IL, U.S.A., 2006; pp 134-165.

38.
Park, H.; et al. Middle school science 2; Kyohak Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 52-91.

39.
Kim, S.; et al. Middle school science 2; Doobae Nkkim Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 128-187.

40.
Kim, C.; et al. Middle school science 2; Doosandonga Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 42-85.

41.
Lee, J.; et al. Middle school science 2: Visang Education Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 55-102.

42.
Lee, G.; et al. Middle school science 2; EduJoongang Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 100-113.

43.
Lee, M.; et al. Middle school science 2; ChunjaeEdu Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 42-87.

44.
Park, J.; Kang, S.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.; Kim, I.; Lee, J. Chemical Education 1993, 20(4), 285.

45.
Kang, S.; Park, J.; Woo, A.; Hur, E. Chemical Education 1996, 23(4), 267.

46.
Kang, S.; Park, J.; Jeong, J. J. Korean Chem. Soc. 1999, 43(5), 578.

47.
Choi, Y.; Lee, W.; Choi, B. J Kor. Assoc. Res. Sci. Edu. 1985, 5(1), 1.

48.
Yoo, G. Physics Education 1988. 6(2), 159.

49.
Park, M. A Study on the Comparison of the Cognitive level of Middle School Students and the Contents of their Science Textbook. Master's Thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, 1994.

50.
Woo, J.; Lee, H.; Min, J. J. Kor. Assoc. Res. Sci. Edu. 1995, 15(4), 379.

51.
Ji, H. The relation between logical thinking ability and science process skills of 8th grade students. Master's Thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, 1995.

52.
Kang, S.; Park, J.; Woo, A.; Huh, E. Chemical Education 1996, 23(4), 267.

53.
Kim, Y. A Study of Comparison between the Cognitive Development Levels of Middle School Students in Grade 2 and the Cognitive Demands required for Understanding Chemistry Contents in Their Science Text Books of the 6th Curriculum. Master's Thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, 1997.

54.
Cheon, H. A Comparative Analysis of Cognitive Development Levels of 8th Grade Students and Cognitive Demands Level of the Chemistry Contents in Middle School Science 2 Textbooks by the 7th National Education Curriculum. Master's Thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, 2009.