Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Design and Pilot Application of an Experiment Focusing on the Nature of Scientific Inquiry: Focus on the Epistemological Issues in the Process of Dry Ice Sublimation Experiment

과학 탐구의 본성에 초점을 둔 실험의 설계와 시범 적용 -드라이아이스 승화 실험에서 드러나는 인식론적 논제를 중심으로-

  • Received : 2018.12.12
  • Accepted : 2019.03.25
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to design and apply a pilot inquiry experiment focusing on the epistemological issues of scientific activities, and derive educational implications by analyzing experimental activities and reflective discussions. Three graduate students who major in science education participated in the study voluntarily. Participants showed the characteristics of stable enquiry in Experiment 1. However, the small but continuous changes in Experiment 2 led the experiment to a phase of fluid enquiry seeking new theories. Participants mobilized various resources, proposed new hypotheses, and models and requested additional experiments to verify them. In the process of reflective discussions, the participants led to the following three epistemological issues. First, at the beginning of the experiment, their observations were theoretically dependent. Second, when the observations were no longer coherent with theory, they face a crisis, and the adjustment of observation and theory proceeds. Third, stable enquiry and fluid enquiry are performed according to the relationship between observation and theory. The educational implications of school science inquiry based on the above process and results are as follows: First, this study shows that fluid enquiry can follow stable enquiry naturally, and examples of the activities are presented together. Second, in this study, it was confirmed that participants could draw up epistemological issues based on their experiences through reflective discussions following inquiry.

이 연구는 과학 활동의 인식론적 논제에 초점을 둔 탐구 실험을 설계 및 시범 적용하고, 실험 활동과 반성적 논의를 분석하여 교육적 함의를 도출하고자 하였다. 사범대학 과학교육과에 소속된 대학원생 3명이 자발적으로 연구에 참여하였다. 연구참여자들은 실험 1에서 안정적 탐구의 특징을 보여주었지만, 실험 2의 작지만 지속적인 변화는 실험을 새로운 설명체계를 찾는 유동적 탐구의 국면으로 이끌었다. 연구참여자들은 여러 가지 밑천을 동원해서 새로운 가설과 모형을 제안하고, 이를 검증할 추가 실험을 요청하였다. 반성적 논의과정에서 연구참여자들은 다음과 같은 세 가지 인식론적 논제를 이끌어 냈다. 첫째, 실험 초기에 자신의 관찰이 이론 의존적이었다. 둘째, 관찰사항이 더 이상 이론에 의존할 수 없는 위기 국면에 봉착하면 관찰과 이론의 조정이 진행된다. 셋째로 관찰과 이론의 관계에 따라 안정적 탐구나 유동적 탐구가 수행된다. 이상의 연구 과정과 결과를 토대로 도출된 예비교사 교육의 함의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 이 연구에서는 안정적 탐구에 뒤이어 유동적 탐구가 자발적으로 진행 될 수 있음을 보였으며 그 활동의 예시를 함께 제시하였다. 둘째, 이 연구에서는 탐구에 뒤따른 반성적 논의를 통해 연구참여자들이 자신의 경험에 기반하여 인식론적 논제를 이끌어 낼 수 있음을 확인하였다.

Keywords

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_173_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Practice of Activities and Experiments(Low Cost Electronic Scale represented by Grey Color)

Table 1. Participants

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_173_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Design of Activity

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_173_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Students’ Observations of Experiment 1

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_173_t0003.png 이미지

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Barton, R. (2002). IT in practical work: assessing and increasing the value-added. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 271-280). New York: Routledge.
  3. Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. Foss, P., Patton, P., & Beitchman, P. (trans.), New York: Semiotext(e).
  4. Chinn, C. A., & Melhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  5. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
  6. Fritschen, L. J., & Gay, L. W. (2012). Environmental instrumentation. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
  7. Galison, P. (1996). Computer simulation and the trading zone. In P. Galison & D. Stump (Eds.). The disunity of science: Boundaries, context, and power (pp. 118-157). California: Stanford University Press.
  8. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Gough, N. (2002) 'If this were played upon a stage...': school laboratory work as a theatre of representation. In J. Wellington (Ed.)., Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 156-172). New York: Routledge.
  10. Grandy, R. & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-2865-z
  11. Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180702
  12. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  13. Jeon, S., Kwak, Y., Koh, H., Lee, Y., & Choi, S. (2017). The needs analysis on science literacy required for Koreans in the future society. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(3), 441-452. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.3.441
  14. Jho, H., & Song, J. (2011). The observation type of primary students and the effect of their views of science on observation activity in anomalous situation. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education. 30(4), 405-414. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2011.30.4.405
  15. Kang, N., & Lee, E., (2013). An analysis of inquiry activities in high school physics textbooks for the 2009 revised science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.132
  16. Kim, M., & Kim, H. (2007). The effects of authentic open inquiry on cognitive reasoning through an analysis of types of student-generated questions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 930-943.
  17. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234.
  18. Kim, K., Noh, J., Seo I., & Noh, T. (2008). The effects of explicit and reflective instruction about nature of science using episodes from the history of science in 'composition of material' unit of middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(1), 89-99.
  19. Kim, S. (2012). Effects of simulated instruction activities through a constructivist lens on preservice biology teachers' epistemological belief, science teaching efficacy belief and teaching motivation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1157-1168. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1157
  20. Kim, Y., & Moon, S. (2003). An analysis of inquiry activities of the high school common science textbook (materials part) by using 3-dimensional analysis framework. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(2), 274-287.
  21. Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1(3), 273-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430277
  22. Ku, J., Kim, S., Lee, H., Cho, S., & Park, H. (2018).OECD Programme for international student assessment: Establishing a foundation of PISA 2018 Field Trial. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation Report of Research RRE 2016-2-1.
  23. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20475
  24. Lee, S., Lee, G., Choii, C., & Shin, M. (2012). Analyzing coordination of theory and evidence presented in pre-service elementary teachers’ science writing for inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 201-209. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.2.201
  25. McComas, W. F., (2002). The nature of science in education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
  26. Ministry of Education, Korea (2007). Science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
  27. Ministry of Education, Korea (2015). Science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
  28. Moss, D. M., Abrams, M. D., & Kull, J. A. (1998). Can we be scientists, too? Secondary students' perceptions of scientific research from a project-based classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022564507639
  29. National Research Council (2000). Clean coastal waters: Understanding and reducing the effects of nutrient pollution. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  30. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  31. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). Probing teachers' views of the nature of science: How should we do it and where should we be looking. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe (pp. 283-295). London: The Falmer Press.
  32. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy. Paris: Author.
  33. Park, J., Lee, S., Shim, H., Lee, G., & Shin, M. (2018). Analyzing the characteristics of pre-service elementary school teachers' modeling and epistemic criteria with the blackbox simulation program. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(3), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.3.305
  34. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  35. Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W. M. (1996). Interactions in an open-inquiry physics laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 423-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180403
  36. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab, & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  37. Schwab, J. (1964). The structure of the disciplines: meaning and significances. In G. W. Ford, & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 1-30). Chicago: Grand McNally.
  38. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128
  39. Song, J. (2006). J. J. Schwab's life and his ideas of science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(7), 856-869.
  40. Wardle, J. (2002). Virtual science: a practical alternative? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 271-280). New York: Routledge.
  41. Wellington, J. (2002a). Epilogue. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 282-284). New York: Routledge.
  42. Wellington, J. (2002b). Practical work in science: time for a reappraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 271-280). New York: Routledge.
  43. Woolnough, B. E. (2002). Authentic science in schools, to develop personal knowledge. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 271-280). New York: Routledge.
  44. Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Yang, I., Cho, H., Jeong, J., Hur, M., & Kim, Y. (2006). Aims of laboratory activities in school science: A delphi study of expert community. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(2), 177-190.