한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제41권2호
  • /
  • Pages.93-102
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

예상하지 못한 현상에 관한 과학적 정보 제공이 고등학생들의 탐구문제 설정에 미치는 영향

Effects of Providing Scientific Information on an Unexpected Phenomenon on High School Students' Setting Inquiry Problems

  • 투고 : 2021.02.19
  • 심사 : 2021.03.31
  • 발행 : 2021.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 '예상하지 못한 현상'을 관찰한 고등학생들이 설정하는 탐구문제 특징을 조사하고, 탐구문제 설정에 있어 과학적 정보 제공이 미치는 영향을 확인하였다. 연구 대상은 서울시 소재 인문계 고등학교 2학년 학생 126명으로, 이들은 A집단 (N=66)과 B집단(N=60)으로 무작위 구분되었다. 연구 과정에서 모든 학생들은 약 45초 분량의 예상하지 못한 현상 영상을 20분간 반복하여 시청하고 영상과 관련하여 자신이 수행하고 싶은 탐구주제를 활동지에 자유롭게 작성하였다. 이때 B집단 학생들에게 제공된 활동지에만 예상하지 못한 현상에 관한 과학적 정보가 추가적으로 포함되어 있던 것이 특징이었다. 연구 결과, 학생들은 집단에 관계 없이 예상하지 못한 현상에 대하여 '원인 지향 탐구문제 (현상의 원인을 밝히고자 함)'보다는 '호기심 지향 탐구문제 (현상의 이유보다는 자신이 하고 싶은 탐구를 함)'를 더 많이 설정하는 경향이 있었다. 호기심 지향 탐구문제 중에서는 '새로운 결과 탐구문제 (실험상황 등을 단순 조작하여 어떤 새로운 결과가 나타나는지를 탐구)'가 대부분을 비중을 차지하였다. 또한, 과학적 정보를 제공받은 학생들은 그렇지 않은 학생들에 비해 제공된 정보를 유의미하게 더 많이 이용하여 탐구문제를 설정하는 경향이 있지만 (χ2(1)=8.996, p<.01), 그렇다고 할지라도 이들이 원인 지향 탐구문제를 유의미하게 더 많이 설정하게 되는 것은 아니라는 사실도 확인되었다 (χ2(1)=1.376, p>.05). 연구 결과는 제공된 정보의 부족, 제공된 정보의 내면화 기회 부족, 개인적 호기심 추구 성향, 직관적 사고 성향 등 네 가지 관점에서 논의되었고, 이를 통해 탐구문제 설정에 대한 시사점이 제안되었다.

In this study, we investigated the characteristics of inquiry problems set by high school students who observed an 'unexpected phenomenon' and identified the effects of providing scientific information on setting inquiry problems. The subjects of this study were 126 eleventh grade students in Seoul that were randomly assigned to group A (N=66) and group B (N=60). In the study, watching a video of about 45 seconds of the unexpected phenomenon repeatedly for 20 minutes, all the students freely wrote inquiry problems that they wanted to carry out in their handouts. At this time, it is characterized that only the handout of group B additionally included scientific information on the unexpected phenomenon. As a result of the study, students, regardless of group, set more 'curiosity-oriented inquiry problems (i.e., focusing on inquiries they want to do rather than revealing what might be the cause of the phenomenon)' rather than going into a 'cause-oriented inquiry problem solving (i.e., revealing the cause of the phenomenon).' Among the curiosity-oriented inquiry problems, most of them were 'new-result inquiry problems (i.e., investigating what new results will occur by simply manipulating experimental situations).' It was also found that students who were provided with the scientific information tended to set significantly more inquiry problems using the provided information than those who were not (χ2(1)=8.996, p<.01), nevertheless the students with the scientific information did not set significantly more cause-oriented inquiry problems (χ2(1)=1.376, p>.05). The findings have been discussed from the four perspectives (i.e., lack of provided information, lack of opportunities to internalize the provided information, personal curiosity-seeking, and intuitive thinking), and implications for inquiry problem setting were suggested.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  2. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. NY: McGraw-Hill.
  3. Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153(3731), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.153.3731.25
  4. Cheon, M., & Lee, B. (2018). Analysis of characteristics of scientific inquiry problem finding process in small group free inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(6), 865-874. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.6.865
  5. Cho, D. K., & Han, K. S. (2015). An analysis of gifted high school students' problem-finding process in science: Based on grounded theory. Anthropology of Education, 18(3), 97-129. https://doi.org/10.17318/jae.2015.18.3.003
  6. Cho, S., & Baek, J. (2015). A case study on the inquiry guidance experiences of pre-service science teachers: Resolving the dilemmas between cognition and practice of inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0573
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00050-7
  9. Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1971). The evolution of physics. London: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Hanson, N. R. (1961). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Hong, S., & Chang, H. W. (2010). Laboratory and creativity: The role of the leader and laboratory culture. Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 10(1), 27-71.
  12. Jeong, D. H., & Son, M. H. (2018). Review of recent studies on chemical experiments and suggestions for their implementation in school education. School Science Journal, 12(4), 399-416. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.12.4.201812.399
  13. Jeong, J., & Kim, H. (2013). An analysis of the science inquiry problem finding processes of elementary science gifted and general students. The Journal of Educational Studies, 44(1), 123-145.
  14. Jung, C., & Shin, D. (2020). Changes of the abductive inquiry performance in outdoor geological fieldwork. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 41(5), 531-554. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2020.41.5.531
  15. Jung, W. K., Lee, J. K., & Oh, S. W. (2011). Investigation on the difficulties during middle school students' finding inquiry topics on open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1199-1213. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.8.1199
  16. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  17. Kang, E. G., & Kim, J. N. (2012). Problem-finding process and effect factor by university students in an ill-structured problem situation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 570-585. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.570
  18. Kang, S. J., Kim, H. J., Lee, G. J., Kwon, Y. S., Kim, M. H., Kim, Y. S., Kim, Y. H., Shin, H. S., Lim, H. Y., & Ha, J. H. (2009). A study of scientifically gifted high school students' perceptions on the research and education program. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(6), 626-638.
  19. Kim, S., & Choi, W. (2019). Recognition of high school students and college student mentors on research project lessons using college student mentoring. School Science Journal, 13(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.13.1.201902.45
  20. Kim, Y., Seo, H., & Park, J. (2013). An analysis on problem-finding patterns of well-known creative scientists. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1285-1299. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1285
  21. Klein, G. (2013). Seeing what others don't: The remarkable ways we gain insights. NY: Public Affairs.
  22. Ko, I. S. (2002). A critique of Sunwoo Hwan's view on (correct) scientific explanation. Korean Philosophical Association, 70, 259-282.
  23. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
  24. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  25. Kwon, Y. J., Yang, I. H., & Chung, W. W. (2000). An explorative analysis of hypothesis-generation by pre-service science teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(1), 29-42.
  26. Lee, S. K., Han, J., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2015). Characteristics of student inquiry found in project-based science practices: Focusing on theory-evidence-method coordinations and skills in using tools. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 599-608. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0599
  27. Lim, M. (2015). The application of unexpected phenomena to the problem-solving type inquiry program: A case study on mixing water and ethanol. Master's thesis, Seoul National University.
  28. Lim, S. M., Yang, I. H., Kim, S. M., Hong, E. J., & Lim, J. K. (2010). Investigation on the difficulties during elementary pre-service teachers' open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 291-303. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2010.30.2.291
  29. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting, (pp. 121-134). VA: NSTA Press.
  30. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum 2015-74 [issue 9].
  31. Miyake, N., & Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 357-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90200-7
  32. Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of Earth Science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903104457
  33. Park, J. (2000). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis: Focused on the definition and the characteristics of scientific hypothesis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4), 667-679.
  34. Park, J. (2001). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis: Focused on the analysis of university students' responses. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 21(3), 609-621.
  35. Park, J. (2003). An analysis of the experimental designs suggested by students for testing scientific hypotheses. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(2), 200-213.
  36. Park, J. (2005). Analysis of the characteristics and processes of the generation of scientific inquiry problems. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 50(4), 203-211.
  37. Park, J., Chang, J., & Song, J. (2016). Why did I cope with so?: A teacher's strategy to cope with anomalous situations in primary practical science lessons. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 35(3), 277-287. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2016.35.3.277
  38. Park, J., Jang, K. A., & Kim, I. (2009). An analysis of the actual processes of physicists' research and the implications for teaching scientific inquiry in school. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9079-8
  39. Park, J. H., Kim, J., & Bae, J. H. (2001). The effect of free inquiry activities on the science process skills and scientific attitudes of elementary school students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 271-280.
  40. Park, J. S., Oh, W. K., Park, J. W., & Chung, B. H. (1999). Criteria for the program development for science gifted children extracted from a science camp activity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(2), 329-339.
  41. Park, K. S. (2019). Action research on open inquiry instruction of the science-gifted: Focusing on students' difficulties and pedagogy of teacher. Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University.
  42. Ryu, S. G., & Park, J. S. (2008). Analysis of the scientific inquiry problem generated by the scientifically-gifted in ill and well inquiry situation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 860-869.
  43. Ryu, S. G., & Park, J. S. (2009). Analysis of the scientific problem-finding activity of the scientifically-gifted. Secondary Education Research, 57(2), 59-83. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2009.57.2.59
  44. Ryu, S. K., & Park, J. S. (2006). An analysis of high school students' activity on problem-finding in ill-structured scientific problem situation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(6), 765-774.
  45. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 177-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0903_1
  46. Shin, H. H., & Kim, H. N. (2010). Analysis of elementary teachers' and students' views about difficulties on open science inquiry activities. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(3), 262-276.
  47. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. NY: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Song, J., Kang, S.-J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Na, J., Do, J.-H., Park, S. C., Son, Y.-A, Son, J. W., Oh, P. S., Lee, J.-K., Lee, H. J., Ihm, H., Jeong, D. H., Joung, Y. J., Kim, J. (2019). Developing performance expectations, school implementation strategies, evaluation indicators of the Korean Science Education Standards (KSES) for the next generation. Seoul: KOFAC.
  49. Yang, I. H., Kim, E. A., & Oh, C. H. (2008). A case study of science high school students' hypothesizing and designing process. Secondary Education Research, 56(3), 293-331.
  50. Yang, I. H., Oh, C. H., & Cho, H. J. (2007). Development of the scientific inquiry process model based on scientists' practical work. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(8), 724-742.