Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analyzing Science-gifted Middle School Students' Understandings of Nature of Science (NOS)

중학교 과학영재들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식 분석

  • Received : 2011.05.02
  • Accepted : 2011.06.16
  • Published : 2011.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The nature of science has been recognized in a great deal in the field of science education. However, only few innovative programs are offered for science-gifted students to improve their recognition of the nature of science. The current study describes and analyzes science-gifted students' understandings of the nature of science (NOS). In addition, the study looks into contradictory views among the aspects of NOS, which are fundamental data in constructing target programs on NOS for science gifted students. Data used in this study were collected from 73 middle school science-gifted students using an open-ended questionnaire, VNOS. The results of this study showed that the participants' understanding of NOS was significantly distributed on naive or transition view except for 'tentative NOS', and the results revealed inconsistent view among the aspects of NOS. This study proposes two suggestions to enhance the recognition of science-gifted on NOS of science to informed state and to have consistent perspectives with other areas. First, the role of experiment has to be changed-it should be the process in constructing scientific knowledge rather than an instrument to check scientific knowledge to transform perspective on experimental data and scientific knowledge. Second, various opportunities must be provided to science-gifted students, so they can experience the culture and community of scientists and science to gain a wider insight of science.

과학의 본성이 과학 교육에서 차지하는 의미에 비하여 실제 과학 영재교육에서는 과학 영재들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식을 향상시키기 위한 획기적인 수업이 제공되고 있지 않다. 과학영재 담당 교사들에게 과학의 본성에 대한 효율적 수업 구성을 위한 기초 자료를 제공하고자, 본 연구의 과학 영재들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식을 알아보고 인식 간에 존재하는 상충된 관점을 파악하였다. 연구는 서울의 한 대학부설 영재센터에 재학 중인 중학생 과학영재 73명을 대상으로 VNOS를 활용하였다. 인식조사 결과, 과학영재 학생들은 '과학지식의 잠정성' 영역을 제외한 다섯 개 영역에서 인식의 개선이 요구되었고 과학의 본성영역 간에도 서로 일치하지 않는 관점을 보였다. 과학 영재학생들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식을 전문가적 관점으로 향상시키고 각 요소 간에 일관적인 관점을 갖도록 이끌기 위하여 두 가지를 제안한다. 첫째는, 실험 자료와 과학적 지식에 대한 인식을 변화시키기 위해 지식을 확인하기 위한 실험에서 지식을 구성해가는 과정을 강조하는 실험으로 바뀔 필요가 있다는 것이다. 둘째는 과학에 대한 안목을 넓히기 위해 과학자 문화와 과학자 공동체에 다양한 방법으로 경험할 기회가 제공되어야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육인적자원부 (2007). 과학과 교육과정. 서울: 교육인적자원부.
  2. 김경대, 강순민, 임재항 (2006). 과학영재들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(6), 743-752.
  3. 김경순, 노정아, 서인호, 노태희 (2008). 중학교 과학 '물질의 구성' 단원에서 과학사 소재를 활용한 명시적 . 반성적 과학의 본성 수업의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(1), 89-99.
  4. 김문선 (2008). 과학의 본성에 대한 견해 조사들의 메타 분석. 석사학위논문. 전남대학교.
  5. 나지연, 장병기 (2005). 과학 연극 수업이 과학 본성에 대한 초등학생의 인식에 미치는 영향. 초등과학교육, 24(5), 558-570.
  6. 박은이, 홍훈기 (2010). 과학 영재를 대상으로 한 명시적 과학의 본성 프로그램의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(2), 249-260.
  7. 박종원, 김두현 (2008). 과학의 본성 지도자료 개발과 과학영재를 대상으로 한 시험적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 169-179.
  8. 임승출 (1994). 과학의 본성과 과학교육에 대한 초등학교 교사들의 인식 조사. 석사학위논문. 한국교원대학교.
  9. 장명덕, 홍상욱, 정진우 (2002). 중학교 2학년 과학영재들의 과학 지식에 대한 과학철학적 관점과 이에 대한 토론 및 읽기 활동의 효과. 한국지구과학회지, 23(5), 397-405.
  10. 정충덕, 강경희 (2008). 과학 영재들의 STS에 대한 관점. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 150-158.
  11. 한지숙, 정영란 (1997). 중,고등학교 과학교사와 학생들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 17(2), 119-125.
  12. 홍성욱 (2004). 과학은 얼마나. 서울: 서울대학교출판부.
  13. 황성원 역 (2001). 과학실험실습교육. 서울: 시그마프레스.
  14. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice. Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
  15. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
  16. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C
  17. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2
  18. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2001). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Bell, R. L. (2003). Exploring the role of nature of science understandings in decision-making. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 63-79). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  21. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
  22. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). 'An experiment is when you try it and see if it works': A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110504
  23. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
  24. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1023
  25. Hipkins, R., & Barker, M. (2005). Teaching the 'nature of science': Modest adaptations or radical reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000276758
  26. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036
  27. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  28. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  29. Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301-317). The Netherlands: Springer.
  30. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  31. Lin, H. S., Chiu, H. L., & Chou, C. Y. (2004). Student understanding of the nature of science and their problem-solving strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 101-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070289
  32. Liu, S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students' views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114-123 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17905.x
  33. McComas, W. F., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An Introduction. Science & Education, 7(6), 511-532. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642510402
  34. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2000). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 3-39). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  35. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290407
  36. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  37. Niaz, M. (2009). Progressive transitions in chemistry teachers' understanding on nature of science based on historical controversies. Science and Education, 18, 43-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9082-x
  38. Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2006). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. The Netherlands: Springer.
  39. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists' views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727-771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701225801
  40. Seung, E., Bryan, L., & Butler, M. (2009). Improving preservice middle grades science teachers' understanding of the nature of science using three instructional approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9130-2
  41. Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101-1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1101::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-V
  42. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & Hennessey, M. G. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290408
  43. The Nature of Science. (2000). In NAST position statement. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
  44. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10004