Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Genetics Problem-Solving Processes of High School Students with Different Learning Approaches

학습접근방식에 따른 고등학생들의 유전 문제 해결 과정 분석

  • Received : 2020.07.13
  • Accepted : 2020.08.26
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to examine genetics problem-solving processes of high school students with different learning approaches. Two second graders in high school participated in a task that required solving the complicated pedigree problem. The participants had similar academic achievements in life science but one had a deep learning approach while the other had a surface learning approach. In order to analyze in depth the students' problem-solving processes, each student's problem-solving process was video-recorded, and each student conducted a think-aloud interview after solving the problem. Although students showed similar errors at the first trial in solving the problem, they showed different problem-solving process at the last trial. Student A who had a deep learning approach voluntarily solved the problem three times and demonstrated correct conceptual framing to the three constraints using rule-based reasoning in the last trial. Student A monitored the consistency between the data and her own pedigree, and reflected the problem-solving process in the check phase of the last trial in solving the problem. Student A's problem-solving process in the third trial resembled a successful problem-solving algorithm. However, student B who had a surface learning approach, involuntarily repeated solving the problem twice, and focused and used only part of the data due to her goal-oriented attitude to solve the problem in seeking for answers. Student B showed incorrect conceptual framing by memory-bank or arbitrary reasoning, and maintained her incorrect conceptual framing to the constraints in two problem-solving processes. These findings can help in understanding the problem-solving processes of students who have different learning approaches, allowing teachers to better support students with difficulties in accessing genetics problems.

본 연구에서는 서로 다른 학습접근방식의 학생이 유전 가계도 문제 해결 과정상에서 어떠한 차이를 보여주는지 심층적으로 들여다보고자 하였다. 연구 대상은 고등학교 2학년 학생으로 생명과학I을 이수한 학생으로 학업성취수준은 비슷하였으나 학습접근방식이 각각 심층적 접근방식과 피상적 접근방식을 나타내었다. 각 학생의 문제 해결 사례를 심층적으로 분석하기 위해 문제 해결 과정은 비디오 녹화되었고, 문제 해결이 종료된 후에 학생들의 문제 해결 과정에 대한 사고 구술 인터뷰를 실시하였다. 연구 결과, 학생들은 2가지 형질의 유전 원리가 불확실한 문제 상황을 해결하는 과정에서 유사한 오류를 보여주었다. 하지만 심층적 학습접근방식의 학생 A는 자발적으로 2번 반복하여 문제를 해결하면서 3가지 제한 요인에 대해 원리 기반추론을 하며 옳은 개념적 프레이밍을 나타내었다. 검토 단계에서 자료와 본인이 그린 가계도 사이의 일치도를 점검하고, 문제 해결 이후에도 끊임없이 본인의 문제 해결 과정을 점검하였다. 마지막의 문제 해결 과정에서는 성공적인 문제 해결 알고리즘에 근접한 문제 해결 과정을 나타내었다. 하지만 피상적 학습접근방식의 학생 B는 연구자의 권유로 비자발적으로 문제 해결 과정을 반복하였고, 답을 구하려는 목적 지향적인 문제 해결 태도로 인해 문제에서 제시한 일부 정보만을 검토하였다. 문제의 제한 요인에 대해 기억 장치 추론이나 임의적 추론을 통해서 옳지 않은 개념적 프레이밍을 하였고, 이를 수정하지 않고 유지하는 모습을 나타내었다. 본 연구 결과를 통해 심층적 접근방식과 피상적 접근방식의 학생이 문제 해결 과정에서 추론 방식과 개념적 프레이밍의 변화가 어떻게 일어나는지 구체적으로 살펴봄으로써 유전 문제의 접근을 어려워하는 학생들이나 이들을 지도하는 교사들에게 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375-404. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004375
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.
  3. Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x
  4. BouJaoude S., & Barakat, H.(2003). Students' problem solving strategies in stoichiometry and their relationships to conceptual understanding and learning approaches. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 1-42.
  5. Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The ideal problem solver. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  6. Byun, T. (2013). A literature review on variables influencing physics problem solving. Journal of Educational Studies, 44(1), 63-95.
  7. Camacho, M., & Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium: successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260306
  8. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123-1130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1123
  9. Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students' understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<625::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-Q
  10. Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education Journal, 12(2), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38
  11. Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<109::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-7
  12. Chiou, G. L., Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). High school students' approaches to learning physics with relationship to epistemic views on physics and conceptions of learning physics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 31(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.794134
  13. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12989
  14. Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. Chichester: Wiley.
  15. Finkel, E. A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: Students' knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 345-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:4<345::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-S
  16. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  17. Hackling, M. W., & Lawrence, J. A. (1988). Expert and novice solution of genetic pedigree problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(7), 531-546. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250703
  18. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  19. Karagoz, M., & Cakir, M. (2011). Problem solving in genetics: Conceptual and procedural difficulties. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(3), 1668-1674.
  20. Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-Do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289949
  21. National Research Council. (2012). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  22. Niaz, M. (1989). Translation of algebraic equations and its relation to formal operational reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 785-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260904
  23. Ramsden, P. (1995). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
  24. Redish, E. F., & Smith, K. A. (2008). Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 295-307. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00980.x
  25. Sevian, H., Bernholt, S., Szteinberg, G. A., Auguste, S., & Perez, L. C. (2015). Use of representation mapping to capture abstraction in problem solving in different courses in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 429-446. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00030K
  26. Simmons, P. E., & Lunetta, V. N. (1993). Problem-Solving Behaviors during a Genetics Computer Simulation: Beyond the Expert/Novice Dichotomy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300204
  27. Slack, S. J., & Stewart, J. (1990). High school students' problem-solving performance on realistic genetic problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270106
  28. Smith, S. U.(1988) Successful and unsuccessful problem solving in classical genetic pedigrees. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(6), 411-433. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250602
  29. Smith, M. U., & Good, R. (1984). Problem solving and classical genetics: Successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(9), 895-912. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210905
  30. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE-life sciences Education, 7, 422-430. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045
  31. Staver, J. R., & Lumpe, A. T. (1995). Two investigations of students' understanding of the mole concept and its use in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320207
  32. Stewart, J. (1988). Potential learning outcomes from solving genetics problems: A typology of problems. Science Education, 72(2), 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720211
  33. Stewart, J., & Dale, M. (1989). High school students understanding of chromosome/ gene behavior during meiosis. Science Education, 73(4), 501-521 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730730410
  34. van de Sande, C. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problem-solving discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.639000
  35. Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children's understanding of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89(4), 614-633. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20061