Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Suggesting Research Methods to Explore the Nature of Earth Science: Applying the Phenomenological Approach and Family Resemblance Approach to NOS

지구과학의 본성에 대한 연구방법 제안 -현상학적 접근 및 과학의 본성(NOS)에 대한 가족유사성 접근의 활용-

  • Received : 2020.02.03
  • Accepted : 2020.02.29
  • Published : 2020.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we propose research methods to explore the nature of earth science by applying the phenomenological approach and NOS-family resemblance approach based on literature review. The phenomenological approach exploring the nature of earth science is a method of collecting, analyzing and synthesizing multifaceted features of earth science from intuitive sensory phenomena without prejudice. As a way of exploring the nature of earth science from a phenomenological point of view, we propose the NOS-family resemblance approach to the NOS. This approach provides a comprehensive explanation of NOS by combining the characteristics shared by different areas of science with distinct differences. Applying this method to exploring the nature of earth science, we can identify both domain-general and domain-specific characteristics that make sub-areas of earth science a 'family.' For example, through the networking of features shared by such sub-areas as geology, atmospheric science, oceanography, astronomy, earth system science, etc., we can extract the family-resemblance characteristics that make these sub-areas a family called earth science. Through these approaches to the nature of earth science, the richness, complexity, and dynamic nature of earth science can be revealed as a whole. In addition, we will be able to grasp the change in the sub-areas that constitute the earth science, which in turn changes the nature of earth science, and to contribute to establishing the status and development system of earth science as a school subject.

본 연구에서는 문헌 고찰을 기반으로 현상학적 접근 및 NOS-가족 유사성 접근을 적용하여 지구과학의 본성을 규명하는 방법을 제안하였다. 현상학적 접근은 지구과학에 고정된 본질이 있는 것이 아니라 시대와 상황의 요청에 따라 본성 자체가 유동적인 것임을 전제로 한다. 이는 직관적으로 드러난 감각적 현상들을 통해 지구과학의 다면적 특성을 편견 없이 모두 수집, 분석하고 종합하는 방법이다. 현상학적 접근은 학문적 세계의 토대를 이루는 생활세계를 직시하면서 지구과학의 본성을 탐구할 수 있는 통찰력을 제공한다. 이를 통해, 지구과학이 가지는 풍부함과 복잡성, 역동성을 드러낼 수 있다. 현상학적 관점에서 지구과학의 본성을 탐색하기 위한 방법으로, 과학의 본성(NOS)에 대한 가족유사성 접근을 제안하였다. NOS-가족유사성 접근을 통해, 조금씩 차이점을 가지는 다양한 과학의 영역들이 서로서로 공유하는 특성들을 조합함으로써 과학의 본성(NOS)을 포괄적으로 설명할 수 있다. 이를 지구과학의 본성에 적용하면 지구과학을 '가족'으로 만들어주는 일반적인(domain-general) 특성과 영역별로 특수한(domain-specific) 특성을 동시에 규명할 수 있다. 예컨대 지구과학을 구성하는 학문영역인 지질학, 대기 과학, 해양학, 천문학, 지구시스템 과학 등등이 서로 공유하는 특징들의 네트워킹을 통해 이들 학문영역을 지구과학이라는 가족으로 특징짓는 가족유사성을 추출할 수 있고, 이를 통해 지구과학의 본성을 총체적으로 드러낼 수 있을 것이다. 또한, 지구과학의 본성에 대한 가족유사성 접근을 통해 지구과학을 구성하는 하위 영역 학문의 특성이 달라짐에 따라 변화하는 지구과학의 본성을 파악할 수 있으며, 교과목으로서 지구과학의 위상과 발전체계를 정립하는 데에도 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. An, H. S, Lee, M. S., Kwon, B. D., Choe, S. U. & Lee, M. (1989). Development of the integrated earth science curriculum with finding the domestic educational materials, Part 1: Analysis of terminologies, graphs and figures appeared in the high school earth science text books. Journal of the College of Education, 39, 1-35. 129-140.
  2. An, J. S. (2013). Elucidate of the fundamental relationship between objective science and life-world: Focusing on Husserl's the crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Philosophical Forum, 41, 213-249.
  3. An, Y. M., Jeong, D. S., Cha, H. J., Choe, J. Y., Kim, C. J., & Choe, S. E. (2006). Nature of earth science through the history of atmospheric sciences (Abstract). Proceedings of the 2006 Spring Conference of the Korean Earth Science Society (pp. 158-159). Cheongju, Korea.
  4. Breslyn, W., & McGinnis, J. R. (2012). A comparison of exemplary biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers' conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20469
  5. Chang, Y. H., Chang, C. Y., & Tseng, Y. H. (2010). Trends of science education research: An automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 315-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9202-2
  6. Cheong, E. H. (2004). Husserl's the crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Journal of Philosophical Ideas, 3(21), pp. 1-198. Institute of Philosophy in Seoul National University.
  7. Cho, E. J., Kim, C. J., & Choe, S. U. (2018). A study on the plurality of Nature of Science in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(5), 721-738. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.5.721
  8. Cho, K. J. (2004). The world of body, a body in the world. Seoul: Ehak Publishing Co.
  9. Cho, S. S. (2015). How to establishing and realizing a new view of academic ability for innovation of future education. Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education & Dongguk University.
  10. Choe, S. U., & Shin, M. K. (1994). Development model of the department of earth science education and its goals. Journal of the College of Education, 49, 1-35.
  11. Choi, H. J. (2012). The views about physics and biology of science teachers who majored in physics. Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 341-353. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2012.36.2.341
  12. Choi, H. J. (2016). High school students' views about physics and biology. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 32(2), 243-267. https://doi.org/10.14333/KJTE.2016.32.2.243
  13. Clough, M. P. (2011). Teaching and assessing the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56.
  14. Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25(1-2), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8
  15. Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2017). Abandoning patchwork approaches to nature of science in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271923
  16. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage Publication, Inc.
  17. Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<107::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-3
  18. Engelhardt, W. von & Zimmermann, J. (1982). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fischer). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
  20. Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25(1-2), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8
  21. Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. R. (2018). From lists in pieces to coherent wholes: Nature of science, scientific practices, and science teacher education. In J. Yeo, T. W. Teo, & K.-S. Tang (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Asia-Pacific and beyond (pp. 3-24). Singapore: Springer.
  22. Finley, F. N., Nam, Y., & Oughton, J. (2011). Earth systems science: An analytic framework. Science Education, 95(6), 1066-1085. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20445
  23. Hacking, I. (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In P. Galison & D. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science (pp. 37-74). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  24. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Taipei: Sense Publishers.
  25. Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911-970). Dordrecht: Springer.
  26. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011a). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
  27. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011b). A family resemblance approach. Plenary presentation session with N. Lederman titled: Current philosophical and educational issues in nature of science (NOS) research, and possible future directions. In International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece.
  28. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999-1021). Dordrecht: Springer.
  29. Kampourakis, K. (2016). The "general aspects" conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667-682. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305
  30. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Akgün, S., & Aksoz, B. (2017). Nature of science in teacher education: A holistic approach. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(2).
  31. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1529447
  32. Kim, B. H., Kim, K. J., Park, I. S., Lee, K. J., Kim, J. K., Hong, J. J., Lee, M. H., Kim, Y. H., Yoo. I. Y., & Lee., H. Y. (1999). Comparison of Phenomenological Research Methods: About the Methods of Giorgi, Colaizzi, Van Kaam. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 29(6), 1208-1220. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.1999.29.6.1208
  33. Kim, C. J., Park, I. S., An, J. S., Oh, P. S., Kim, D. Y., & Park, Y. S. (2005). Development of an inquiry analysis framework based on the features of earth science inquiry methodology and the analysis of inquiry activities in the 8th grade 'Earth history and diastrophism' unit. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 26(8), 751-758.
  34. Kim, H. J., Kim, Y. D., Kim, D. Y., & Wee, W. M. (2018). The case study of strategies for abductive reasoning in the process of solving earth science inquiry questions for middle school students. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(15), 799-820.
  35. Kwak, Y. S. (2009). Qualitative research: Philosophy, art and education. Paju: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
  36. Kwak, Y. S. (2019). Scientific writing for teachers. Paju: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
  37. LaDue, N. D., Libarkin, J. C., & Thomas, S. R. (2015). Visual representations on high school biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics assessments. Journal of science education and technology, 24(6), 818-834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9566-4
  38. Laudan, R. (1987). From mineralogy to geology: the foundations of a science, 1650-1830. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  39. Lee, C. J. (2003). Identity and academic classification of earth science in Korea. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 24(7), 650-656.
  40. Lee, G. H., & Kwon, B. D. (2010). Reasoning-based inquriy model embedded in earth science phenomena. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 31(2).
  41. Lee, I. S. (2008). Great Convergence of Knowledge. Seoul: Gozwin.
  42. Lee, J. J. (2017). The Phenomenological-Hermeneutic Reflection on the Methodological Assumptions of the Grounded Theory. Research in Philosophy and Phenomenology, 75, 69-108. https://doi.org/10.35851/PCP.2017.12.75.69
  43. Lee, K. S., Lee, W. H., & Jang, W. J. (1996). A study on identification and development of each subject-centered education in primary and secondary school. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(3), 94-122.
  44. Lee, S. J. (2005). Form of life and language games. Philosophical Analysis, 12, 121-138.
  45. Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S. W., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students' ideas about the Earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.17
  46. Libarkin, J. C., & Kurdziel, J. P. (2006). Ontology and the teaching of Earth system science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 408-413. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-54.3.408
  47. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht: Springer.
  48. Mayer, V. J. (1995). Using the earth system for integrating the science curriculum. Science Education, 79(4), 375-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790403
  49. MSIT & KISTEP (2018). National Standard Classification System of Science and Technology. Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) & Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP).
  50. NIA (2018). The 4th industrial revolution, Finds Korea's future. National Information Society Agency (NIA).
  51. Needham, R. (1975). Polythetic classification: Convergence and consequences. Man, 10(3), 349-369. https://doi.org/10.2307/2799807
  52. Oh, P. S. (2006). Rule-inferring strategies for abductive reasoning in the process of solving an earth-environmental problem. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(4), 546-558.
  53. Oh, P. S. (2018). An exploratory study of the 'method of multiple working hypotheses' as a method of earth scientific inquiry. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 39(5), 501-515. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.5.501
  54. Oh, P. S., & Kim, C. J. (2005). A theoretical study on abduction as an inquiry method in earth science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(5), 610-623.
  55. Park, J. H., & Lee, J. H. (2013). A Systematic Review of the Studies of Integrative Education. Asian Journal of Education, 14(1), 97-135. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2013.14.1.005
  56. Related ministries (2016). Mid- to long-term master plan in preparation for the intelligent information society managing the 4th industrial revolution. Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning.
  57. Selles-Martinez, J. (2004). International Earth Science Olympiad: What to test and how to do so. In Seoul Conference for the International Earth Science Olympiad Conference Proceedings (pp. 136-142).
  58. Seol, M. (2016). The problem of the (external) world in the phenomenological theory of perception and transcendental phenomenology. Journal of Philosophical Ideas, 59, 157-190.
  59. Shin, C. S. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods and Phenomenology. Social science, 42(1), 85-112.
  60. Shin, D. H. (2000). Past, present, and future of earth science education research in Korea. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 21(4), 479-487.
  61. Shin, S. K. (2004). Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations. Journal of Philosophical Ideas, 3(22), pp. 1-172. Institute of Philosophy in Seoul National University.
  62. Sin, M. Y., Lee, S. U., Go, S. Y., Park, H. Y., Jang, H. Y., & Choe, S. E. (2006). Exploring the nature of earth science through the change of a view of the universe (Abstract). Proceedings of the 2006 Spring Conference of the Korean Earth Science Society (pp. 182-183). Cheongju, Korea.
  63. Son, D. H. (2009). The basis of integrative education and the role of university college. Korean Journal of General Education, 3(1), 21-32.
  64. Sung, W. J., & Hwang, S. S. (2017). A review of intelligent society studies: A look on the future of AI and policy issues. Informatization Policy, 24(2), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.22693/NIAIP.2017.24.2.003
  65. Woo, J. O., & Lee, K. S. (1992). The study of direction for education on earth science subject matter of high school in Korea. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 13(2), 113-126.
  66. Yoo, H. R. (2015). Logic and Methods of Phenomenological Qualitative Research: Focused on Max van Manen's Research Methodology, Journal of Family and Counseling, 5, 1-20.