Comparing the Structure of Secondary School Students' Perception of the Meaning of 'Experiment' in Science and Biology

중등학생들의 과학과 생물에서의 '실험'의 의미에 대한 인식구조 비교

  • Received : 2015.12.04
  • Accepted : 2015.12.28
  • Published : 2015.12.31


Perception of the experiment is one of the most important factors of students' understanding of scientific inquiry and the nature of science. This study examined the perception of middle and high school students of the meaning of 'experiment' in the biological sciences. Semantic network analysis (SNA) was especially used to visualize students' perception structure in this study. One hundred and ninety middle school students and 200 high school students participated in this study. Students responded to two questions on the meaning of 'experiment' in science and biology. This study constructed four semantic networks based on the collected response. As a result, middle school students about the 'experiment' in science are 'we', 'direct', 'principle' of such words was aware of the experiments from the center to the active side. The high school students' 'theory', 'true', 'information' were recognized as an experiment that explores the process of creating a knowledge center including the word. In addition, middle school students relative to 'experiment' of the creature around the 'dissection', 'body', high school students were recognized as 'life', 'observation' observation activities dealing with the living organisms and recognized as a core. The results of this study will be used as important evidence in the future to map out an experiment in biological science curriculum.


the meaning of experiment;perception structure;secondary school students;semantic network analysis(SNA)


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295.
  2. Bodzin, A. & Gegringer, M. (2001). Breaking science stereotypes. Science and Children, 38(4), 36-41.
  3. Brown, C. R. (1995). The effective teaching of biology. New York, USA: Longman Publishing Company.
  4. Cho, H. J., & Yang, I. H. (2005). Review on the aims of laboratory activities in school science. Elementary Science Education, 24(3), 268-280.
  5. Cho, H., Yang, I., & Lee, H. (2008). Comparison between secondary school science teachers' and students' perceptions about the important aims of laboratory. Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 103-120.
  6. Collins, A. M., Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.
  7. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird's-eye view of the "pieces"vs. "coherence" controversy. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35-60). New York: Routledge.
  8. Doerfel, M. L., & Barnett, G. A. (1999). A semantic network analysis of the international communication association. Human Communication Research, 25(4), 589-603.
  9. Fisher, K. (1990). Semantic networking: The newkids on the block. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1001-1018.
  10. Galison, P. (1987). How experiments end. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  11. Galison, P. (1997). Three laboratories. Social Research, 64(3), 1127-1155.
  12. Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Goodreau, S. M. (2014). Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research. CBE-Life Science Education, 13, 167-178.
  13. Hacking, I. (1983). The Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Hacking, I. (1989). Philosophers of experiments. In A Hine & J. Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988, East lancing (pp. 147-156). Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.
  15. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97-127.
  16. Han, S. Y. (2004). Educational reflections on laboratory experiment in school science. The Journal of Educational Principles, 9(1), 47-82.
  17. Hodson, D. (1996). Is this really what scientist do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J. wellington (Ed.). Practical Work in School Science. NY: Routledge, 93-108.
  18. Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change in science education. Learning and instruction, 16, 416-432.
  19. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2003). Middle school students' ideas about the purposes of laboratory work. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(3), 254-264.
  20. Lawson, A. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
  21. Lee, J. K., & Ha, M. (2012). Semantic network analysis of science gifted middle school students' understanding of fact, hypothesis, theory, law, and scientificness. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 823-840.
  22. Lee, S. (2002). Two roles of experiment: Fact aquisition and theory testing. Cheolhak, 72, 273-294.
  23. Lee, S. (2009). Phenomena and instruments. Hanul Academy: Seoul.
  24. Lewicki, R. J., Gray, B., & Elliot, M.. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington D. C.: Island Press.
  25. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of living world. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
  26. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorf, L. (2004). Understanding the KrKwic: A computer program for the analysis of Korean text. Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society. 6(5), 1377-1387.
  27. Park, J. (2003). An analysis of the experimental designs suggested by students for testing scientific hypotheses. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(2), 200-213.
  28. Park, S. H., Ko, K. T., Jeong, J. S., & Kwon, Y. J. (2005). Types of hypothesis-testing methods generated in students' biology inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(2), 230-238.
  29. Quillian, M. R. (1967). Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioral Sciences, 12, 410-430.
  30. Radder, H. (1988). The material realization of science. Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
  31. Radder, H. (1993). Science, realization and reality: The Fundamental issues. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 24, 327-349.
  32. Radder, H. (2003). The philosophy of experimentation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  33. Simpson, R. D., & Anderson, N. D. (1981). Science, students, and schools: A guide for the middle and secondary school teacher, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
  34. Thagard, P. (1998). Ulcers and bacteria I : Discovery and acceptance. Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical science, 29(1), 107-136.
  35. Wassetman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
  36. Welzel, M., Haller, K., Bandiera, M., Hammelev, D., Koumars, P., Niedderer, H., Paulsen, A. C., Beou-Robinault, K., & von Aufschnaiter, S. (1988). Teachers' objectives for labworks; research tool and cross country results. Working paper 6, labworks in Science Education Project.
  37. Wheeler, W. H. (1929). Present tendencies in biological theory. The Scientific Monthly, 28, 97-109.
  38. Woolnough, B. E. (1994). Effective science teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  39. Yang, I. H., Jeong, J. W., Hur, M. & Kim, S. M. (2006). The development of laboratory instruction classification scheme. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(3), 342-355.
  40. Yang, I. H., Kim, S. M. & Cho, H. J. (2007). Analysis of the types of laboratory instruction in elementary and secondary schools science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(3), 235-241.