JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Analysis of the Level of Cognitive Demands about Concepts of Ionic Compounds and Molecule on Science 2 Textbooks in Junior High School (II)
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Analysis of the Level of Cognitive Demands about Concepts of Ionic Compounds and Molecule on Science 2 Textbooks in Junior High School (II)
Kang, Soonhee; Bang, Dami; Kim, Sun-Jung;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the cognitive demands level of the description about 'pure substance and mixture compound', 'ionic compound', 'molecule' on the 'science2' textbooks by the 2007 revised curriculum. The three types of Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy have been used to analyze the cognitive demands level of those contents on the 6 kinds of 'science2' textbooks. The first, the cognitive demand level about 'pure substance and mixture compound' on many textbooks is a late concrete operational stage because of class inclusion and hierarchical classification. And the descriptions as 'pure substance is conserved even when mixed with other pure substance' is a early formal operational stage. The second, the cognitive demand level about 'ionic compound' and 'molecule' is a early formal operational stage, because of "Formal modeling is the indirect interpretation of reality by deductive comparison from a postulated system with its own rules" and "Atoms have a structure". The third, the terms as 'ionic bonding', 'ionic compound', 'chemical formula', 'covalent bonding', 'covalent compound', and 'molecular formula' have been used on many 'science2' textbooks. Those terms would be used later on 'chemistry I' and 'chemistry II' in senior high school but not even 'science3' and 'science'.
 Keywords
Pure substance;Mixture compound;Ionic compound;Molecule;Compound;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
'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)
2.
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)
3.
2007 개정·2009 개정 중학교 과학 교과서 화학영역에 사용된 과학 글쓰기 문항의 비교 분석,이규희;홍훈기;

대한화학회지, 2014. vol.58. 6, pp.600-611 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.
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)
3.
An Comparison Analysis of Science Writing Tasks in the Chemistry Domain of Middle School Science Textbooks Developed under the 2007 & the 2009 Revised National Curriculums (RNC), Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 2014, 58, 6, 600  crossref(new windwow)
4.
An Analysis of Concept Description and Model and Student Understanding About Ionic Compound in Textbooks Developed Under the 2009 Revised National Curriculum, Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 2016, 60, 5, 362  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
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, and 92-97.

2.
Kang, S.; Bang, D.; Kim, S. J. J. Korean Chem. Soc. 2012, 56(4), 518-529. crossref(new window)

3.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2007-79, Science Curriculum. Daehan Textbook Publishing: Seoul, Korea, 2007.

4.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2007-79, Junior Highschool Curriculum Commentary. Daehan Textbook Publishing: Seoul, Korea, 2007.

5.
Nuffield Science 13-16; Beta Schofield, Ed.; Longman: Harlow, U. K., 1981.

6.
Frank, D. V.; Little, J. G.; Miller, S. Chemical Interactions; Pearson Education Inc.: New Jersey, U. S. A., 2009; pp 12-21.

7.
Wysession, M.; Frank, D.; Yancopoulos, S. Physical Science: Concepts in Action; Pearson Education Inc.: New Jersey, U.S.A., 2009; pp 98-155.

8.
Hsu, T. Foundations of Physical Science; CPO Science: MA, U.S.A., 2005; pp 309-324.

9.
Hsu, T. Physics A First Course; CPO Science: NH, U.S.A., 2005; pp 217-237.

10.
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.

11.
Hewitt, P. G.; Lyons, S.; Suchocki, J.; Yeh, J. Conceptual Integrated Science; Pearson Education Inc.: San Francisco, U.S.A., 2007; pp 167-189 and 228-240.

12.
Dobson, K.; Holman, J.; Roberts, M. Physical Science; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: Texas, U.S.A., 2008; pp 110-173.

13.
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.

14.
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.

15.
Shayer, M.; Kchemann, D. E.; Wylam, H. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1976, 46, 164. crossref(new window)

16.
Choi, B.; Hur, M. J. Korea Assoc. Sci. Educ. 1987, 7(1), 19.

17.
Park, J.; Kang, S.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.; Kim, I.; Lee, J. Chemical Education 1993, 20(4), 285.

18.
Kang, S.; Park, J.; Woo, A.; Hur, E. Chemical Education 1996, 23(4), 267.

19.
Kang, S.; Park, J.; Jeong, J. J. Korean Chem. Soc. 1999, 43(5), 578.

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

21.
Kang, S. Cognitive Development of Students and Curriculum Demand of Science Contents in Science Teaching Strategy; Ewha Womans University, Research Institute of Curriculum Instruction, Ed.; Education Series; Seromoonhwasa Press: Seoul, 2002; pp 25, 27-32, 34-38 and 40-48.

22.
Kim, Y.; Kim, S. J. J. J Korea Assoc. Sci. Edu. 2009, 29(4), 437.

23.
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.

24.
Ji, H. The relation between logical thinking ability and science process skills of 8th grade students. Master's Thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, 1995.

25.
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

26.
Woo, J.; Lee, H.; Min, J. J. Korea Assoc. Sci. Edu. 1995, 15(4), 379.

27.
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.

28.
Yoo, G. Physics Edu. 1988. 6(2), 159.

29.
Choi, Y.; Lee, W.; Choi, B. J Korea Assoc. Sci. Edu. 1985, 5(1), 1.

30.
Park, H.; et al. Middle school science 2; Kyohak Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 52-91.

31.
Kim, S.; et al. Middle school science 2; Doobae Nkkim Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 128-187.

32.
Kim, C.; et al. Middle school science 2; Doosandonga: Press Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 42-85.

33.
Lee, J.; et al. Middle school science 2: Visang Education Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 55-102.

34.
Lee, G.; et al. Middle school science 2; EduJoongang Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 100-113.

35.
Lee, M.; et al. Middle school science 2; ChunjaeEdu Press: Seoul, Korea, 2011; pp 42-87.