Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of High School Students' Analogy Generating Processes Using Think-Aloud Method

발성사고법을 활용한 고등학생의 비유 생성 과정 분석

  • Received : 2017.08.04
  • Accepted : 2018.01.11
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated high school students' analogy generating processes using the think-aloud method. Twelve high school students in Seoul participated in this study. The students were asked to generate analogies on ionic bonding and were also interviewed after their activities. Their activities and interviews were recorded and videotaped. After classifying the analogy generating processes into the three stages-encoding, exploring sources, and mapping, several process components were identified. The analyses of the results indicated that they checked the target concept given and selected one for a salient attribute among many attributes of the target concept at the stage of encoding. After selecting the salient attribute, they translated the salient attribute that is a scientific term into an everyday term, which is named as 'extracting salient similarities.' At the stage of exploring sources, they chose the sources based on salient similarities and chose the final source through circular processes, which included the process components of 'evaluating the sources' and 'discarding the sources.' At the final stage, they added the attributes to analogs and mapping them to the attributes of the target concept, which is named as 'mapping shared attributes.' There were some cases that 'mapping shared attributes' appeared after they specified the situation of analogs or assumed new situation, which is named as 'specifying the situations.' Some students recognized unshared attributes in their analogs.

이 연구에서는 발성사고법을 활용하여 고등학생의 비유 생성 과정을 심층적으로 조사하였다. 서울특별시에 소재한 고등학교에 재학중인 12명의 학생이 연구에 참여하였으며, 이온 결합을 목표 개념으로 비유 생성 활동을 실시하였다. 비유 생성 활동을 마친 후 반구조화된 면담을 실시하였고, 비유 생성 활동과 면담을 포함한 모든 과정을 녹음 및 녹화하였다. 비유 생성 과정을 부호화, 소재 탐색, 대응의 세 단계로 구분하여 비유 생성 과정에서 나타나는 과정 요소를 추출하였다. 연구 결과, 부호화 단계에서 학생들은 주어진 목표 개념을 확인한 후 목표 개념의 여러 하위 속성 중 하나를 주요 속성으로 선택하였다. 주요 속성을 선택한 이후에는 과학적 용어인 주요 속성을 일상적 용어로 변환하는 주요 유사점 추출의 과정 요소가 나타났다. 소재 탐색 단계에서 학생들은 주요 유사점을 중심으로 소재를 선택하였고, 선택한 소재를 평가 및 폐기하고 새로운 소재를 선택하는 순환적 과정을 거쳐 최종적인 소재를 선택하였다. 대응 단계에서는 비유물에 하위 속성을 추가하고 이를 목표 개념의 하위 속성과 대응하는 공유 속성 대응의 과정 요소가 나타났는데, 비유물이 표현하고 있는 상황을 구체화하거나 새로운 상황을 가정하는 비유 상황 구체화의 과정 요소가 나타난 이후 공유 속성 대응의 과정 요소가 나타나는 경우도 있었다. 학생들 중 일부는 자신이 생성한 비유가 갖는 비공유속성을 인식하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Aragon, M. D. M., Oliva, J. M., & Navarrete, A. (2014). Contributions of learning through analogies to the construction of secondary education pupils' verbal discourse about chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1960-1984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.887237
  2. Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2011). Investigating and theorizing discourse during analogy writing in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 771-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20428
  3. Blake, A. (2004). Helping young children to see what is relevant and why: Supporting cognitive change in earth science using analogy. International Journal of Science Education, 26(15), 1855-1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000266173
  4. BouJaoude, S., & Tamim, R. (2008). Middle school students' perceptions of the instructional value of analogies, summaries and answering questions in life science. Science Educator, 17(1), 72-78.
  5. Byun, C. S., & Kim, H. (2010). The effects of student-centered instruction using analogy for middle school students' learning of the photosynthesis concept. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 304-322.
  6. Clement, J. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(4), 563-586. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1204_3
  7. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
  8. Ferguson, L. E., Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
  9. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.). Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction. American Psychologist, 52(1), 32-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.32
  11. Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Analogies in modelling-based teaching and learning. In J. K. Gilbert & R. Justi (Eds.), Modelling-based teaching in science education (pp. 149-169). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  12. Haglund, J. (2013). Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 35-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.801119
  13. Haglund, J., & Jeppsson, F. (2012). Using self-generated analogies in teaching of thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 898-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21025
  14. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884
  15. Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.35
  17. Kang, H. (2011). Comparison of characteristics of analogies on saturated solution generated by elementary school teachers, general and science-gifted students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(3), 305-314.
  18. Kang, H., & Cheon, J. (2010). Characteristics, mapping understanding, mapping errors, and perceptions of student-generated analogies by elementary school students' approaches to learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(5), 668-680.
  19. Kaufman, D. R., Patel, V. L., & Magder, S. A. (1996). The explanatory role of spontaneously generated analogies in reasoning about physiological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180309
  20. Kim, D. (2008). The effects of applying instruction using high school students' self-generated analogies for concepts in genetics. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(5), 424-437.
  21. Kim, D., & Kim, J. (2012). Mapping analysis of scientific concepts and analogies generated by middle school students about light and waves using learning materials for generating analogies. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 16(4), 1189-1209. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2012.16.4.1189
  22. Kim, K., Choi, E., Cha, J., & Noh, T. (2006). The effect of an instruction using generating analogy on students' conceptual understanding in middle school science concept learning. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(4), 338-345. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.4.338
  23. Kim, K., Hwang, S., & Noh, T. (2008). An investigation of the types of student-generated analogies, the mapping understanding, and the mapping errors in concept learning on the reaction rate with generating analogy. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 52(4), 412-422. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2008.52.4.412
  24. Kim, K., Hwang, S., & Noh, T. (2010). The relationships among students' mapping understanding, mapping errors and cognitive/affective variables in learning with analogy. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(1), 150-157. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.01.150
  25. Kim, M., Kwon, H., Kim, Y., & Noh, T. (2017). An investigation of the characteristics of analogies generated by high school students on ionic bonding: A comparison of characteristics of analogies depending on their cognitive variables. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0039
  26. Kim, Y., & Noh, T. (2015). An analysis of verbal interaction and analogy-generating pattern of science-gifted students in learning using analogy-generating strategy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 1063-1076. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.1063
  27. Kim, Y., Moon, S., & Noh, T. (2009). An investigation of the types of analogies generated by science-gifted student, mapping errors on the chromatography, and the perceptions on generating analogy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(8), 861-873.
  28. Kim, Y., Park, W., & Noh, T. (2010). The characteristics of analogies generated by science-gifted students depending on the consideration of attributes and relationships in the processes of generating analogies. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(5), 621-632. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.5.621
  29. Kwon, H., Choi, E., & Noh, T. (2003). Analysis of the analogies on three states of matter generated by middle school students. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 47(3), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2003.47.3.265
  30. Kwon, H., Kim, M., Kim, S., & Noh, T. (2017). The patterns of analogy change and the characteristics of discussions in collaborative activity of self-generated analogy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education. 37(3), 407-416. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.3.407
  31. Lin, T. J., Anderson, R. C., Hummel, J. E., Jadallah, M., Miller, B. W., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., ... & Dong, T. (2012). Children's use of analogy during collaborative reasoning. Child Development, 83(4), 1429-1443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01784.x
  32. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2012). Students' pre- and post-teaching analogical reasoning when they draw their analogies. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 429-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.593202
  33. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2013). Science teachers' analogical reasoning. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1689-1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9328-8
  34. Noh, T., & Kwon, H. (1999). A study on science teachers' practices and perceptions of using analogies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(4), 665-673.
  35. Noh, T., Yang, C., & Kang, H. (2009). Characteristics of student-generated analogies, mapping understanding, and mapping errors on saturated solution of scientifically-gifted and general elementary students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(3), 292-303.
  36. Noh, T., Yang, C., & Kang, H. (2010). The types of analogy generation processes and the perceptions of analogy generation on saturated solution of fifth grade scientifically-gifted and general elementary students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(2), 219-232.
  37. Nottis, K. E. K., & McFarland, J. (2001). A comparative analysis of pre-service teacher analogies generated for process and structure concepts. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(4).
  38. Park, B., & Shin, D. (2010). Elementary school high achievers' gender characteristics of successful and unsuccessful process in problem solving. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 10(2), 173-189.
  39. Rule, A. C., & Furletti, C. (2004). Using form and function analogy object boxes to teach human body systems. School Science and Mathematics, 104(4), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18237.x
  40. Spier-Dance, L., Mayer-Smith, J., Dance, N., & Khan, S. (2005). The role of student-generated analogies in promoting conceptual understanding for undergraduate chemistry students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500266401
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Open coding. In A. Strauss & J. Corbin (Eds.), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed., pp. 101-121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  42. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers' analogical explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310304
  43. Vosniadou, S. (1989). Analogical reasoning as a mechanism in knowledge acquisition: A developmental perspective. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 413-437). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Wong, E. D. (1993). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-1272. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301008
  45. You, J., Kang, S., Kim, J., & Noh, T. (2013). An investigation of students' science writing processes using think-aloud method. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(5), 881-892. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.881
  46. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 41-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323662