Elementary Students' Cognitive Conflict Through Discussion and Physical Experience in Learning of Electric Circuit

전기회로 학습에서 초등학생의 토론과 체험을 통한 인지갈등

  • Published : 2002.12.30


We investigated elementary students' conceptions of the simple electric circuit using a battery, a bulb and a wire, and made comparison between the cognitive conflict through peer discussion and the cognitive conflict through physical experience. Two hundred and sixty-four sixth grade students who already had learned about the electric circuit were participated. The questionnaire to investigate the student's conceptions about simple electric circuit consisted of 5 items drawing the wire connections between a battery and a bulb to light the bulb. The students in the discussion group paired randomly with student who had different conceptions, and then each pairs discussed about their ideas freely with each other. After discussion they conducted CCLT(Cognitive Conflict Level Test) which consisted of 4 factors; recognition, interest, anxiety, reappraisal. The physical experience group conducted a task in which they connected a battery and a bulb with a wire, then conducted CCLT. The sixth graders had various misconceptions. Most students were not aware of the scope of negative battery terminal and two electric terminals of a bulb. Many students emphasized the tip of a bulb and positive battery terminal. The score of CCLT in the discussion group was higher than in the physical experience group. This results showed that discussion with peers was more effective than physical experience to arouse cognitive conflict.


cognitive conflict;peer discussion;physical experience;electric circuit


  1. 박상석(1999). 과학학습에서 불일치 상황에 대면한 초등학생의 인지갈등측정 도구개발, 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문
  2. 이영직(1998). 인지갈등에 의한 고등학생의 물리 개념 변화. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문
  3. Anderson, B.(1986). The experimental gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils' preconceptions in science. Ewopean Journal of Science Education, 8, 155-171
  4. Appleton, K.(1997). Analysis and description of students' learning during science classes using a constructivist-based model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 303-318 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199703)34:3<303::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-W
  5. Hashweh, M. Z.(1986). Toward on explanation of conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 229-249 https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080301
  6. Lee, G. H., Park, S. S., Kim, J. H., Kwon, H. G., Park, H. K., & Kwon, J. S.(1999). The development of an instrument for the measuring student's cognitive conflict levels. Paper presented at NSTA(National Science Teachers Association) annual meeting. Bostion, March 28-31
  7. Lucia, M.(1994). Analogy, metaconceptual awareness and conceptual change: A classroom study. Educational Studies, 20, 267-272 https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569940200209
  8. Osborn, J.(1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80, 53-83 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199601)80:1<53::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-1
  9. Shepardson, D. P. & Moje, E. B.(1994). The nature of fourth gragers' understandings of electric circuits. Science Education, 78, 489-514 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780505
  10. 김명련(1994). 인지갈등 수업 전략이 중학생의 과학 개념변화와 과학적 태도에 미치는 영향. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문
  11. 김범기, 권재술(1995). 과학 개념과 인지적 갈등의 유형이 학생들의 개념변화에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 15, 472-486
  12. Chambers, S. K. & Andre, T.(1997). Gender. prior knowledge, interest, and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107-123 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2<107::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  13. Shipstone, D.(1988). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23, 92-96 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/23/2/004
  14. Hewson, P., & Hewson, M.(1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00051837
  15. 권재술(1989). 과학개념의 한 인지적 모형. 물리교육, 7, 1-9
  16. Pines, A. L., & West, L. H. T.(1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research with a source-of-knowledge framework. Science Education, 70, 583-604 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700510
  17. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W.(1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  18. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.(1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12
  19. Yager, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R.(1985). Oral discussion, group to individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60-66 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.1.60
  20. 심영이(1994). 인지갈등전략이 아동의 힘 개념변화에 미치는 효과. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문
  21. Niaz, M.(1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: A dialectic-constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 959-970 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320907
  22. 차 영(2001). 작용과 반작용에 관한 학습에서 토론을 통한 인지갈등과 개념변화. 한국과학교육학회지, 21, 411-421
  23. Druyan, S.(1997). Effects of the kinesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 34, 1083-1099 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1083::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-N
  24. 권재술(1992). 과학 개념 학습을 위한 수업 절차와 전략. 한국과학교육학회지, 12, 19-29
  25. Shepardson, D. P. & Moje. E. B.(1999). The role of anomalous data in restructuring fourth graders' frameworks for Understanding electric circuits, International Journal of Science Education, 21, 77-94 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290840
  26. Vosniadou, S.(1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69 https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3
  27. 이영직(1992). 뉴턴 운동법칙에 관한 학생들의 오개념 견고성. 한국교원대학교 석사 학위논문
  28. Throley, N., & Treagust, D.(1987) Conflict within dyadic interactions as a stimulant for conceptual change in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 203-216 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069870090209