Test Environment Factors Influencing Word Association about Science Terminology in Students

과학용어에 대한 학생들의 단어 연상에 영향을 미치는 검사 환경 요인

  • Received : 2015.10.27
  • Accepted : 2015.12.22
  • Published : 2015.12.31


The list of words and the semantic structure that connects them have been important to the areas of psychology, psychoanalysis, linguistics, and education. Some researchers in constructivist perspectives of science education also have interests in the structure of science concepts expressed by science terminologies. The purpose of this paper was to investigate the test environment factors influencing the word association test as a method to identify students' semantic structures for science terminologies. We set up four variables that are possibly considered in recognizing a word as having scientific meaning. The four variables include: noticing whether stimulus words are science terminologies or not, presenting science terminologies and everyday words alternately, whether presider is science teacher or not, and whether students have learned the concepts or not. In comparing the test results of the experimental group and the control group, we have checked whether each variable influences the test result or not. Stimulus words included nine science terminologies containing both ordinary and scientific meanings, and subjects included 282 middle school students. The degree of recognizing science terminology as having scientific meaning was found to increase only when stimulus words were noticed as science terminologies. In the case of the remaining variables, there was no difference between the control group and the experimental group.


science terminology;word association test;cognitive structure;semantic structure;test environment


  1. Aitchison, J. (1996). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Blackwell.
  2. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Sutcliffe, R. G. (1999). Investigation of students' cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 134-141.
  3. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  4. Channell, J. (1990). Vocabulary acquisition and the mental lexicon in meaning and lexicography. In J. Tomaszczyk, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Meaning and lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  5. Cramer, G. (1915). Rural directory of Knox. County, 48.
  6. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.
  7. Galton, F. (1879). Psychometiric experiments. Brain, 2, 149-162.
  8. Gardner, R. C. (2007). Motivation and second language acquisition. Porta Linguarum, 8, 9-20.
  9. Geeslin, W. E., & Shavelson, R. J. (1975). An exploratory analysis of the representation of a mathematical structure in students' cognitive structures. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 211-239.
  10. Gussarsky, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (1988). On the chemical equilibrium concept: Constrained word associations and conception. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 319-333.
  11. Itza-Ortiz, S. F., Rebello, S. & Zollman, D. (2003). Students' models of Newton's second law in mechanics and electromagnetism. European Journal of Physics, 25, 81-89.
  12. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York : Holt.
  13. Jiang, W. (2000). The relationship between culture and language. ELT Journal, 54(4), 328-334.
  14. Johnson, P. E. (1969). On the communication of concepts in science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 32-40.
  15. Johnstone, A. H., & Moynihan, T. F. (1985). The relationship between performances in word association tests and achievement in chemistry. European Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 57-66.
  16. Jung, C. G. (1972). Experimental researches: Collected works 12. Princeton University Press.
  17. Kempa, R. F., & Nicholls, C. E. (1983). Problem solving ability and cognitive structure: An exploratory investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 5(2), 171-184.
  18. Langacker, R. W. (1997). Consciousness, construal and subjectivity. In M. I. Stamenow (Ed.), Language structure, discourse and the access to consciousness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  19. Lee, J. C. (1996). The way and the material to teach the associative meaning of words. Korean Language Education Research, 6(1), 137-155.
  20. Lee, C. H. (2007). An effective English vocabulary teaching method through the responses by word association tests. Journal of Studies in Language, 23(2), 287-303.
  21. Lee, D. H. (2007). A construction of semantic category system and its application to dictionary. Korean Semantics, 24, 51-82.
  22. Lee, G. H. (2009). An experimental study for building a Korean associative thesaurus. Korean Studies, 45, 177-206.
  23. Lee, Y. J. (2015). Science teachers' word association of science terminologies in the middle school science unit 'Force and Motion' and their comparisons with students' associations. Master's thesis, Korea National University of Education.
  24. Miller, G. A. (1986). Dictionaries in the mind. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 171-185.
  25. Miller, G. A. (1998). The science of words. Scientific American Library.
  26. Nation, K., Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342-356.
  27. Oh, D. S., Lee, S. H., Lee, I. S., & Kim, A. R. (1984). Analysis of science terminology by association. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 10(2), 67-72.
  28. Park, S. O. (2008). Research and analysis for word association meaning of Koreans and Chinese, and training methods applying the lexicon of Korean. Korean Semantics, 25, 71-98.
  29. Preece, P. F. W. (1978). Exploration of semantic space: Review of research on the organization of scientific concepts in semantic memory. Science Education, 62(4), 547-562.
  30. Putz, M. (1997). Language choices: Conditions, constraints, and consequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  31. Rupley, H., & Slough, S. (2010). Building prior knowledge and vocabulary in science in the intermediate grades: Creating hooks for learning. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 99-112.
  32. Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of a subject matter structure in a student's memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(3), 231-249.
  33. Sternber, R. J., & Ben-Zeer, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. Oxford University Press.
  34. Tsai, C. C., & Huang, C. M. (2002). Exploring students' cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36(4), 163-169.
  35. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Owford: Basil Blackwell.
  36. Yun, E. J. & Park, Y. (2013a). Analysis of students' word association about the science terminologies used in the "Force and Motion" unit in middle school science textbook. Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 573-582.
  37. Yun, E. J. & Park, Y, (2013b) Analysis of physics terminology used in science textbook 'Force and Motion' unit in 7th, 2007 & 2009 national curriculum - a method to select science terminology for teaching. Korealex, 22, 193-210.

Cited by

  1. Extraction of scientific semantic networks from science textbooks and comparison with science teachers’ spoken language by text network analysis pp.1464-5289, 2018,