DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Elementary Students' Conceptual Metaphor Structures about Light through Analysis of Their Image Schema

초등학생들의 빛에 대한 이미지 스키마 분석을 통한 개념적 은유 구조 연구

  • Received : 2018.10.25
  • Accepted : 2018.12.07
  • Published : 2018.12.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze elementary students' conceptual metaphor forms of light through their image schema of light. The participants were 162 $6^{th}$ grade students from G city, Gyeongsangnam-do. For this study, the analysis framework was developed as image schema analysis and systemic functional grammar analysis. Then, students' metaphorical expressions of light concepts were analyzed by the framework(image schema analysis and systemic functional grammar analysis). The findings are as follows. First, in the understanding of source of light, students had two structures of light. (a)Light comes out from a light source and goes straight in space. (b)Light is dispersed around a light source. Second, in the understanding of the process to see a material, students had five structures including scientific concept as light came out from a light source approaches the material and reflects off the material, then the light goes into the person's eyes. Third, in the understanding of reflection of light, students had four structures including scientific concept as light came out from a light source approaches the mirror and is reflected from the mirror.

본 연구의 목적은 빛에 대한 초등학생들의 이미지 스키마를 통해 이들의 개념적 은유 유형을 분석하는 것이다. 연구 참여자는 경상남도 G시의 한 개 초등학교 6학년 학생 162명이다. 이 연구를 위해 분석틀이 고안되었으며, 그 분석틀은 이미지 스키마 분석틀과 체계적 기능 문법 분석틀이다. 학생들의 빛 개념을 묻는 질문지도 개발되었다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 광원에 대해 학생들은 빛에 대해 두 가지의 구조를 가지고 있음을 보였으며, 그 두 가지는 빛이 광원으로부터 나와 직선으로 공간에 퍼져나간다는 것과 빛이 광원 주위에 정지해 있다는 것이다. 둘째, 물체를 보는 과정에 대한 이해에서는, 학생들은 과학자적 개념을 포함하여 5개의 구조를 나타냈다. 셋째, 빛의 반사에 대한 이해에서는 학생들은 과학자적 개념을 포함하여 4가지의 개념 구조를 나타냈다.

Keywords

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Framework for analysis of metaphor expression

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Correlation between conceptual metaphor structures of light from light source, process that object is seen, and reflection of light

Table 1. Classification of image schema

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Symbols of main image schema

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Analysis of elements of systemic functional grammar

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Questions for asking about light conception

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Students’ responses to question of the meaning of light source

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Students’ conceptual metaphor forms about the light from light source

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Frequency of each conceptual structure about light from light source

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. Students’ conceptual metaphor structure about process of object seen

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0008.png 이미지

Table 9. Students’ conceptual metaphor structure about process of object seen

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0009.png 이미지

Table 10. Students’ conceptual metaphor structure about process of object seen

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0010.png 이미지

Table 11. Frequency of each conceptual structure about process that object is seen

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0011.png 이미지

Table 12. Students’ conceptual metaphor structure about reflection of light

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0012.png 이미지

Table 13. Frequency of each conceptual structure about light reflection

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0013.png 이미지

Table 14. Elementary students’ conceptual understanding structures about light from light source(S), process that object is seen(W), reflection of light(R)

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_813_t0014.png 이미지

References

  1. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20099
  2. Brewe, E. (2011). Energy as a substance-like quantity that flows: Theoretical considerations and pedagogical consequences. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 7(2), 1-14.
  3. Buty, C., & Mortimer, E. F. (2008). Dialogic/authoritative discourse and modelling in high school teaching sequence on optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1635-1660. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701466280
  4. Chu, H. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Secondary students' stable and unstable optics conceptions using contextualized questions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(2), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9472-6
  5. Cienki, A. (1997). Some properties and groupings of image schemas. Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 3-15.
  6. Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive linguistics, 10, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001
  7. Close, H. G., & Scherr, R. E. (2015). Enacting Conceptual Metaphor through Blending: Learning activities embodying the substance metaphor for energy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5-6), 839-866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025307
  8. Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351-380. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351
  9. Dreyfus, B. W., Geller, B.D., Gouvea, J., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C. & Redish, E. F. (2014). Ontological metaphors for negative energy in an interdisciplinary context. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 10, 1-11.
  10. Dreyfus, B. W., Gupta, A., & Redish, E. F. (2015). Applying conceptual blending to model coordinated use of multiple ontological metaphors. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5), 812-838. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1025306
  11. Duit, R., Gropengiesser, H., Kattmann, U., & Komorek, M. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction-a framework for improving teaching and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe (pp. 13-38). Rotterdam: Sense
  12. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
  13. Enghag, M., Gustafsson, P., & Jonsson, G. (2007). From everyday life experiences to physics understanding occurring in small group work with context rich problems during introductory physic work at university. Research in Science Education, 37, 449-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9035-4
  14. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. UK: Edinburgh University Press.
  15. Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students' understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science education, 76(6), 653-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760606
  16. Fuchs, H. U. (2015). From Stories to Scientific Models and Back: Narrative framing in modern macroscopic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5-6), 934-957. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025311
  17. Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners' knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 57-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900290000
  18. Goldberg, F. M., & McDermott, L. C. (1986). Student difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror. The Physics Teacher, 24(8), 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2342096
  19. Guesne, E. (1985). Light. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  20. Hoffman, R. R. (1980). Metaphor in science. Cognition and figurative language, 393-423.
  21. Jeong, J., Cho, S., & Lim, C. (1996). A Study of the Validating Evaluation of Science Curriculum Sequence and Instructional Effectiveness with the Application and Hierachical Analysis of Science Conceptions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 16(1), 1-12.
  22. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  23. Kim, H., Kwon, J., Kim, B., Jeong, J., & Choi, B. (1992). Korean Children's Conceptions about Light. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 12(2), 43-53.
  24. Kim, Y., Hong, S., & Kim, J. (2013). Korean High School Students' Perception and Understanding of Highly Metaphorical Science Terminologies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 718-734. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.718
  25. Kim, Y. & Hwang, J. (2016). A method of analysis of gifted students' understanding and creativity development through metaphorical representation about science concepts. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 8(3), 1-14.
  26. Kwon, K. (2011). Comparison Between Elementary- and Middle-school Students' Conceptions of the Propagation Path of Light and the Consistency of Those Conceptions. SAE MULLI, 61(7), 643-650. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.61.643
  27. Kwon, S., & Kim, J. (2007). Comparing Misconceptions of Scientifically-Gifted and General Elementary Students in Physics Classes. Elementary Science Education, 25(5), 476-484.
  28. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
  29. Lancor, R. (2015). An analysis of metaphors used by students to describe energy in an interdisciplinary general science course. International Journal Of Science Education, 37(5-6), 876-902. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025309
  30. Lee, I., Hong, J., & Jhun, Y. (2007). Effects of the Classes on the Path of the Light through the Lens Focused on Substantial Concepts for the Elementary School Gifted in Science. Elementary Science Education, 25(5), 548-555.
  31. Marulcu, I., Karakuyu, Y., & Dogan, M. (2013). Can elementary students gather information from concept maps?. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(4), 611-625.
  32. Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2015). Understanding Starts in the Mesocosm: Conceptual metaphor as a framework for external representations in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5-6), 903-933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025310
  33. Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21026
  34. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  35. Shin, S. (2009). A study on Analogy and Metaphor in Science. Korean Semantics, 29, 133-152.
  36. Won, M. (1999). An Analysis of Characteristics of Scientific Metaphors. Journal of Language Science, 6(1), 59-80.