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 Pre-Service Science Teachers' PCK for Lessons Using Analogies

예비과학교사의 비유 사용 수업에 대한 PCK 분석

  • Received : 2019.03.27
  • Accepted : 2019.06.25
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated pre-service science teachers' design for lessons using analogies in the perspectives of PCK. Three pre-service science teachers at a college of education in Seoul participated in this study. After the workshop of instructional analogies in science education, they practiced lessons using analogies in teaching practices. We observed their lessons and collected all of the teaching-learning materials. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted. The analyses of the results reveal that they dealt with mapping and unshared attribute only when using main analogies in their lessons and these processes were teacher-centered. There were some cases where they failed to adequately deal with analogies including concepts beyond the curriculum. When dealing with unshared attributes, they did not tend to accept students' opinions although they thought that unshared attributes are strongly related to misconceptions. Their understanding of assessment using analogies was not high. Assessment was relatively well done when they use student-centered analogies such as physical analogies or role-playing analogies. On the bases of the results, we suggest some educational implications for pre-service science teacher education.

이 연구에서는 예비과학교사의 비유 사용 수업 설계를 PCK 측면에서 분석하였다. 서울특별시에 소재한 사범대학에서 교육 실습에 참여한 3명의 예비과학교사가 연구에 참여하였다. 과학교육에서의 비유에 대한 워크숍을 실시한 후 교육 실습에서 비유 사용 수업을 실행하도록 하였다. 교육 실습에 참관하며 예비교사들의 수업을 관찰하였고, 예비교사들이 교수학습 자료를 수집하였으며, 반구조화된 면담을 하였다. 연구 결과, 예비교사들은 수업에서 비중 있게 다루는 비유에서만 대응 관계와 비공유 속성을 다루었고, 이 과정이 교사 중심적으로 이루어졌다. 예비교사들이 교육과정을 벗어나는 개념을 포함한 비유를 수업에서 적절히 다루지 못하는 경우가 있었다. 예비 교사들은 비공유 속성이 학생들의 오개념과 관련이 크다고 생각하였으나 비공유 속성을 다룰 때는 학생들의 의견에 폐쇄적인 모습을 보였다. 비유를 활용한 평가에 대한 예비교사들의 이해는 높지 않았고, 물리적 비유나 역할놀이 비유와 같은 학생 중심의 비유를 사용할 때 평가가 상대적으로 원활히 이루어졌다. 이상의 결과를 바탕으로 예비 과학교사 교육과정과 관련된 함의를 논의하였다.

Keywords

GHGOBX_2019_v39n3_441_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Procedure of data collecting

GHGOBX_2019_v39n3_441_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Analogies used in B’s lesson

GHGOBX_2019_v39n3_441_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. A physical analogy using card rings in C’s lesson

GHGOBX_2019_v39n3_441_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 4. A student-generated form of card rings analogy

Table 1. Pre-service teachers’ lessons and analogies used in the lessons

GHGOBX_2019_v39n3_441_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Workshop of instructional analogies

GHGOBX_2019_v39n3_441_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. The components and their definitions of PCK for lessons using analogies

GHGOBX_2019_v39n3_441_t0003.png 이미지

References

  1. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187041
  2. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy. In Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 1-9). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  3. Cho, H.-H., & Choi, K. (2002). Science education: Constructivist perspectives. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(4), 820-836.
  4. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320306
  5. 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
  6. Else, M. J., Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Using analogies in science teaching and curriculum design: Some guidelines. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp.215-231). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  7. Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, B. K. Britton & R. H. Yeany (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp.219-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  8. Harrison, A. G., & Coll, R. K. (Eds.), (2007). Using analogies in middle and secondary science classrooms: The FAR guide-An interesting way to teach with analogies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  9. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade-10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291-1307. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301010
  10. James, M. C., & Scharmann, L. C. (2007). Using analogies to improve the teaching performance of pre-service teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 565-585. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20167
  11. Jarman, R. (1996). Student teachers' use of analogies in science instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 869-880. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180710
  12. Kim, K., Ahn, I., Choi, Y., & Noh, T. (2013). An analysis of analogies in chemistry content of middle school science textbooks and high school chemistry textbooks developed under the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 57(6), 801-812. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2013.57.6.801
  13. 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
  14. Kim, K., Shin E., Byun S., & Noh, T. (2006). Analysis of students' mapping errors induced in learning chemistry concept with analogy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(4), 592-600.
  15. Kim, K., Yang, C., & Noh, T. (2009). The influences of the role-playing analogy in chemistry concept learning on mapping understanding and mapping errors. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(8), 898-909.
  16. Kim, M., Kim, H., & Noh, T. (2018a). The characteristics in the processes of generating analogy for lessons by pre-service science teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(3), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.3.369
  17. Kim, M., Kim, H., & Noh, T. (2018b). The characteristics of lessons using analogies planned by pre-service science teachers. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 62(2), 148-158. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.2.148
  18. Kim, Y. (1991). Effects of instruction using systematic analogies on change of middle school students' conceptions of electric current. (Doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  19. Kim, Y. (2012). Analogy and metaphor in science education and creativity. Seoul: Bookshill.
  20. Kurtz, M. J. (1995). Using analogies to teach college chemistry: A multiple analogy approach. (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
  21. Kwon, H., Choi, E., & Noh, T. (2004). Students' understanding of the analogies used in chemistry education and the limitations of using analogies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(2), 287-297.
  22. Lawson, A. E., Baker, W. P., Didonato, L., Verdi, M. P., & Johnson, M. A. (1993). The role of hypothetico-deductive reasoning and physical analogues of molecular interactions in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1073-1085. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300906
  23. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Nashon, S. M. (2004). The nature of analogical explanations: High school physics teachers use in Kenya. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 475-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3229-4
  27. Noh, T., Kwon, H., & Lee, S. (1997). The effect of an instruction using analog systematically in middle school science class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 17(3), 323-332.
  28. 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.
  29. Noh, T., Yang, C., Kim, Y., & Kang, H. (2012). A case study on the changes of beginning science-gifted education teachers' teaching professionalism through coteaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 655-670. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.655
  30. Oliva, J. M., Azcarate, P., & Navarrete, A. (2007). Teaching models in the use of analogies as a resource in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 29(1), 45-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708444
  31. Orgill, M., & Bodner, G. (2004). What research tells us about using analogies to teach chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1039/B3RP90028B
  32. Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922-941. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21022
  33. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
  34. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  35. Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Coulson, R., & Anderson, D. (1989). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: Antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 498-531). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Open coding. In A. Strauss & J. Corbin (Eds.), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (pp. 101-121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  37. 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
  38. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Analogies in chemistry textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 783-795. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069950170609
  39. Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., Joslin, P., & Lindauer, I. (1992). Science teachers' use of analogies: Observations from classroom practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140404
  40. Yang, C., Kim, K., & Noh, T. (2010). Influence of method using analogy on students' concept learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(8), 1044-1059. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2010.30.8.1044
  41. Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2(2), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514840020203
  42. 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

Cited by

  1. PCK에 근거한 초등학교 교사의 과학영재수업과 발명영재수업 구성과 실천의 특징 비교 vol.39, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.3.338