Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Implications of Science Education as Interdisciplinary Education through the Cases of Scientists and Artists in the Modern Era: Focus on the Relationship Between Science and the Arts

근대 과학자와 예술가의 사례를 통해 살펴 본 융복합교육으로서의 과학교육: 과학과 예술을 중심으로

  • Received : 2014.10.10
  • Accepted : 2014.12.19
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The convergence and consilience in education (hereafter, interdisciplinary education) is receiving great attention from societies. This study aims to investigate the works of scientists and artists who have intended to combine science with the arts in the modern era, to take into account the socio-philosophical setbacks during the period, and to suggest pedagogical implications of science education as interdisciplinary education. The concept of interdisciplinary education stems from Plato's thought, idea, as a comprehensive and invariant truth. The renaissance, full of enrichment about scientific achievement, was based on Neo-Platonism pursuing holistic-synthetic approach. During the time, scientists presented in this study tried to find comprehensive principles and borrow useful method from the arts. In such a context, scientists not only made use of the arts for expression of scientific knowledge, but also drew conclusion by analogical reasoning between science and the arts. Artists, as well, relied upon anatomy and optics especially, to elaborate linear perspective and even developed their own scientific knowledge through personal experience. Hence, contemporary science education should encourage students to hold a holistic viewpoint about science and the arts, articulate explicit goals and outcomes as interdisciplinary education, implement meta-disciplinary instruction about science and the arts, and develop assessment framework for collaborative learning. There may be good examples for inter-disciplinary education as listed: illustrating scientific ideas through the arts and vice versa, organizing collaborative works and evaluations criteria for them, and stressing problem solving on a daily basis.

통섭 또는 융복합은 오늘날 매우 많은 관심을 받고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 과학과 예술의 통합을 시도한 근대 과학자와 예술가들의 발견 과정을 중심으로 융복합의 특징을 살펴보고, 근대의 사회철학적 배경을 고려함으로써 오늘날 과학교육이 융복합교육으로서 필요한 과제와 방향에 대해 논의하고자 한다. Netwon, Kepler, Galileo 등의 근대 과학자들은 예술의 사실적 묘사와 같은 방법을 통해 과학 지식을 표현하고 추론하는 데 활용하였으며, 예술과 과학의 규칙과 대응 관계를 통해 새로운 이론을 주장하고자 하였다. 예술가들 역시 과학을 통해 보다 사실적인 현상의 묘사를 힘썼으며, 특히 선원근법을 중심으로 한 해부학과 광학에 주로 의존하였다. 또한 과학자들과 예술가들 모두 유비 추리를 통한 일종의 "빌려오기"를 통한 융복합을 시도하였다. 이는 시기적으로 신플라톤주의의 영향을 받은 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 당시의 과학자들은 상황이나 장소에 대한 구분 없이 적용되는 보편타당한 법칙과 방법을 추구하였으며, 예술과의 융합을 통해 과학 지식을 예술에 접목시키기도 하고 예술의 유용한 도구를 과학적 발견에 활용하기도 하였다. 따라서 오늘날 융복합교육으로서의 과학교육은 학생들에게 보다 전체적인 관점에서 바라볼 수 있도록 해야 하며, 과학과 예술 간의 통합을 통한 아이디어 창출을 목표로 과학과 예술 간의 상호 보완적인 관계를 중심으로 초학문적 시도를 장려해야 한다. 또한, 협동학습의 조직 및 관련되는 평가 기준의 마련을 통해 집단적 창의성을 증진시키고 일상 맥락에서의 문제 해결을 통한 경험을 강조해야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, J., & Kwon, N. (2012). The analysis on domestic research trends for convergence and integrated science education. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.2.265
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: a project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Assier, P. (2014). Laser light art. Retrieved from http://www.thewestrologist.com/tag/alberti/
  5. Aston, P., Martin, E., Bassler, M., & Toman, R. (2000). Neoclassicism and romanticism: architecture, sculpture, painting, drawings, 1750-1848. Cologne: Konemann.
  6. Baigrie, B. S. (1996). Picturing knowledge: historical and philosophical problems concerning the use of art in science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  7. Baigrie, B. S. (2007). Electricity and magnetism: a historical perspective. London: Greenwood Press.
  8. Baigrie, B. S. (Ed.). (2002). History of modern science and mathematics. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
  9. Bang, D., Park, E., Yoon, H., Kim, J., Lee, Y., Park, J., . . . Lee, H. (2013). The design of curricular framework for integrated science education based on big ideas. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(5), 1041-1054. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.1041
  10. Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing, visualization and young children's exploration of big ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802595771
  11. Butts, R. E. (1968). William Whewell's theory of scientific method. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  12. Copleston, F. C. (1952). Medieval philosophy. London: Methuen.
  13. Crombie, A. C. (1996). Science, art, and nature in medieval and modern thought. London, U.K.: Hambledon Press.
  14. Curriculum Standing Committee of National Education Professional Associations (CSCNEPA). (2007). Developing a 21st century school curriculum for all Australian students. Retrieved from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/CSCNEPA_paper_June087.pdf
  15. Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical concepts in physics: the historical relation between philosophy and scientific theories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Integrated curriculum. VA: Association for Sipervision and Curriculum Development.
  17. Eknoyan, G. (2000). Michelangelo: art, anatomy, and the kidney. Kidney International, 57, 1190-1201. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00947.x
  18. Ferguson, G. (1954). Signs and symbols in Christian art. London, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
  19. Ferguson, K. (2013). Tycho and Kepler: the unlikely partnership that forever changed our understanding of the heavens: Transworld.
  20. Fogarty, R. (2009). How to integrate the curricula. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  21. Galilei, G., & Helden, A. v. (2000). Sidereus nuncius. Palo Alto, CA: Octavo.
  22. Galili, I., & Zinn, B. (2007). Physics and art - a cultural symbiosis in physics education. Science & Education, 16, 441-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9006-1
  23. Glick, T. F., Livesey, S. J., & Wallis, F. (Eds.). (2005). Medieval science, technology and medicine: an encyclopedia. New York: Routledge.
  24. Gombrich, E. H. (2000). Art and illusion: a study in the psychology of pictorial representation. Princeton: Princeton University.
  25. Gombrich, E. H. (2006). The story of art. New York: Phaidon Press.
  26. Gribbin, J. (2002). Science: a history, 1543-2001. New York: Allen Lane.
  27. Han, H., & Lee, H. (2012). A study on the teachers' perceptions and needs of STEAM education. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 12(3), 573-603.
  28. Harman, P. M. (1980). Energy, force and matter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Heilbron, J. L. (1999). Electricity in the 17th and 18th centuries: a study of early modern physics. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
  30. Hesse, M. B. (1962). Force and field: the concept of action at a distance in the history of physics. Philosophy of Science, 29(4), 434-435. https://doi.org/10.1086/287897
  31. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  32. Huff, T. E. (2003). The rise of early modern science: Islam, China and the West. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Jho, H. (2014). Implications of the relationship between science and art in the twentieth century for science education. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 64, 550-559. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.64.550
  34. Kang, T. (1996). Art, truth, science. Seoul: Jaewon.
  35. Kepler, J. (1619). Harmonices mundi libri V. Original from the Bavarian State Library.
  36. Kim, H. (2012). A study on relation and importance of art education in STEAM education. Studies in Basic Design & Art, 13(5), 105-113.
  37. Kim, W. (2012). Building conceptual framework to bring up talents capable of creative fusion: from the perspective of fusion between science and technology and art. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 11(1), 97-119.
  38. Kim, W.-D. (1997). Modernism and postmodernism. Seoul: Hyunamsa.
  39. Kim, Y., Seo, H.-A., & Park, J. (2013). An analysis on problem-finding patterns of well-known creative scientists. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1285-1299. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1285
  40. Kim, Y., Park, S., & Song, S. (2013). History of science. Seoul: Jeonpa-Gwahaksa.
  41. 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
  42. Lee, K.-J., & Kim, K.-J. (2012). Exploring the meaning and practicability of Korea STEAM education. The Journal of Elementary Education, 25(3), 55-81.
  43. Lelliott, A., & Rollnick, M. (2010). Big ideas: a review of astronomy education research 1974-2008. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1771-1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903214546
  44. Lloyd, G. E. R. (2012). Early greek science: Thales to Aristotle. New York: Random House.
  45. Mahon, B. (2003). The man who changed everything. Chicester: Wiley.
  46. Martin, C. F. J. (1996). An introduction to medieval philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  47. Maxwell, J. C. (1881). A treatise on electricity and magnetism. Oxford, U. K.: Clarendon Press.
  48. Meshberger, F. L. (1990). An interpretation of Michelangelo's creation of Adam based on neuroanatomy. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 264(14), 1837-1841. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03450140059034
  49. Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius: imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Copernicus.
  50. Ministry of Education. (2013). Science syllabus primary 2014. Singapore, Singapore: Curriculum Planning & Development Division.
  51. Ministry of Education Science and Technology(MEST). (2011). National Science Curriculum. Seoul, Korea: MEST.
  52. Na, S., & Kwon, N. (2014). Exploring domestic and international elementary school convergence science education program: Korea, the U.S., and the U. K. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(2), 231-241. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.2.231
  53. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
  54. Neressian, N. J. (1984). Aether/or: the creation of scientific concepts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 15(3), 175-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(84)90016-5
  55. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
  56. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Definition and selection of competencies: theoretical and conceptual foundations (DeSeCo). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/41529556.pdf
  57. Park, J.-H., & Lee, J.-H. (2013). A systematic review of the studies of integrative education. Asian Journal of Education, 14(1), 97-135.
  58. Parkinson, G. (2008). Surrealism, art, and modern science: relativity, quantum mechanics, epistemology. London, U.K.: Yale University Press.
  59. Pedretti, C. (2004). Leonardo: art and science. Cobham, U.K.: TAJ Books.
  60. Petrie, H. G. (1992). Interdisciplinary education: are we faced with insurmountable opportunities? Review of Research in Education, 18, 299-333.
  61. Princeton University. (1996). The partnership of art and science: the moon of Cigoli and Galileo. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/-freshman/science/galileo/galileo.html
  62. Ro, S.-W., & An, D.-S. (2012). A study on direction of development in STEAM education. The Journal of Education Research, 10(3), 75-96.
  63. Ross, W. D. (1953). Plato's theory of ideas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  64. Ross, W. D. (1960). Aristotle: a complete exposition of his works & thought. New York: Meridian Books.
  65. Shirley, J. W., & Hoeniger, F. D.(Eds.). (1985). Science and the arts in the Renaissance. Washington, D.C.: Folger Shakespeare Library.
  66. Shlain, L. (1993). Art and physics: parallel visions in space, time, and light. New York: Quill/W. Morrow.
  67. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
  68. Son, D. H. (2008). Demands of convergent education & teaching philosophy at universities. Philosophical studies, 83, 231-261.
  69. Son, Y.-A., Pottenger III, F. M., King, A., Young, D. B., & Choi, D.-H. (2001). Theory and practice of curriculum design for integrated science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21(1), 231-254.
  70. State University of New York (SUNY). (1993). Albrecht Durer: artist drawing a nude with perspective device. Retrieved from https://www.oneonta.edu/faculty/farberas/arth/arth200/durer_artistdrawingnude.html
  71. Strosberg, E. (2001). Art and science. New York: Abbeville Press.
  72. Suh, Y.-S. (2012). Philosophical underpinnings and theoretical foundations of convergent education. Journal of the New Korean Philosophical Association, 67, 145-163.
  73. Suk, I., & Tamargo, R. J. (2010). Concealed neuroanatomy in Michelangelo's seperation of light from darkness in the Sistine chapel. Neurosurgery, 66(5), 851-861. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000368101.34523.E1
  74. Trifogli, C. (2000). Oxford physics in the thirteenth century: motion, infinity, place and time. Leiden: Brill.
  75. Turner, H. (1996). Religion: impediment or saviour of science? Science & Education, 5(2), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00428615
  76. Vitz, P. C., & Glimcher, A. B. (1984). Modern art and modern science: the parallel analysis of vision. New York: Praeger.
  77. Voelkel, J. R. (2006). Johannes Kepler and the new astronomy (Y. Park, Trans.). Seoul: Bada.
  78. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  79. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Wilson, E. O. (2007). Consilience: the unity of knowledge (J. Choi and D. Jang, Trans.). Seoul: Science Books.
  81. Wineburg, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (Eds.). (2000). Interdisciplinary curriculum: challenges to implementation. New York: Teachers College Press.
  82. Woo, J.-H., & Yoo, M.-H. (2013). Analysis of the cases in elementary STEAM programs' convergence and integration type for the gifted. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 5(2), 82-95.
  83. Yakman, G. (2007). STEAM education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. Paper presented at the ITEEA annual conference.
  84. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048

Cited by

  1. Possibilities of Integrated HOS(History of Science) Cases as a Subject of Environmental Education vol.28, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.17965/kjee.2015.28.4.242
  2. The Perception of Primary Students on the Aesthetic Features of Science and the Relationship between Science and Art vol.21, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2017.21.2.132
  3. 과학자의 창의적 문제해결을 통한 발명교육의 시사점 탐색: 로버트 후크를 중심으로 vol.41, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.405
  4. Interdisciplinary Approach to Combine Science and Art: Understanding of the Paintings of René Magritte from the Viewpoint of Quantum Mechanics vol.24, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09600-z
  5. A Comparative Study on the Various Perspectives on the Nature of Science through Textbook Analysis Centering on the Consensus View, Features of Science, and Family Resemblance Approach vol.39, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.5.681
  6. 과학자의 연구 사례에 관한 비네트 개발 및 효과 탐색 vol.40, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2021.40.1.81
  7. Social Role Narrative of Disabled Artists and Both Their Work in General and in Relation to Science and Technology vol.11, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11030102