Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Textbooks of Chemistry I, II and Survey of Chemistry Education Major Pre-service Teachers' Perception Related to the Electron Transfer Model

전자 이동 모델에 대한 화학 I, 화학 II 교과서 분석 및 화학 교육 전공 예비교사들의 이그노런스 인식 조사

  • Ryu, Eun-Ju (Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Jeon, Eun-Sun (Changhyun High School) ;
  • Paik, Seoung-Hey (Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education)
  • 유은주 (한국교원대학교 화학교육과) ;
  • 전은선 (창현고등학교) ;
  • 백성혜 (한국교원대학교 화학교육과)
  • Received : 2021.05.24
  • Accepted : 2021.07.24
  • Published : 2021.10.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, the contents of the electron transfer model presented in the 4 chemistry I and the 4 chemistry II textbooks of 2009 revised curriculum and 9 chemistry I textbooks and 6 chemistry II textbooks of 2015 revised curriculum were analyzed in the viewpoint of model's Ignorance. In addition, 3 questions were developed to find out whether 24 pre-service teachers were perceived of the Ignorance of the electron transfer model. As a result, Most textbooks explain the redox reaction of covalent bond substances, which is an inconsistent context of the electron transfer model, with mixing oxidation number change and electron transfer or with electron transfer. In addition, the change to the development and use of the model emphasized in the 2015 revised curriculum was not clearly revealed in the curriculum comparison. Most pre-service teachers incompletely perceived or did not perceive Ignorance of the electron transfer model. Only 1 pre-service teacher perceived Ignorance of the model. In conclusion, the textbook description needs to be improved so that Ignorance of the model is revealed when the textbook describes the inconsistent situation of the electron transfer model. And through the education for pre-service teachers, it is necessary to provide an opportunity for pre-service teachers to perceive Ignorance of the electron transfer model.

이 연구에서는 2009 개정 교육과정의 화학 I 교과서 4종, 화학 II 교과서 4종과 2015 개정 교육과정의 화학 I 교과서 9종, 화학 II 교과서 6종에서 제시하는 전자 이동 모델 관련 내용을 모델의 이그노런스 관점에서 분석하였다. 또한 화학 교육 전공 예비교사 24명을 대상으로 전자 이동 모델의 이그노런스를 인식하고 있는지 알아보는 3개 문항을 개발하여 설문을 시행하였다. 분석 결과, 대부분 교과서가 전자 이동 모델의 불일치 상황인 공유결합물질의 산화·환원 반응을 산화수 변화와 전자 이동을 혼용하여 설명하거나 전자 이동으로 설명하였다. 또한 2015 개정 교육과정에서 강조한 모델의 개발과 활용으로의 변화가 교육과정 비교에서 뚜렷하게 드러나지 않았다. 대다수 예비교사는 전자 이동 모델의 이그노런스를 불완전하게 인식하거나 인식하지 못하였다. 단 1명의 예비교사만이 모델의 이그노런스를 명료하게 인식하였다. 결론적으로 교과서가 전자 이동 모델의 불일치 상황을 설명할 때 모델의 이그노런스가 드러나도록 교과서 서술이 개선될 필요가 있다. 그리고 예비교사 교육을 통해 예비교사들도 전자 이동 모델의 이그노런스를 인식할 기회를 제공해 주어야 한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2019S1A5C2A04081191/NRF-2019R1A2B5B01069840).

References

  1. Paik, S. H. Journal of Chemical Education 2015, 92, 1484. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500891w
  2. Ryu, E. J.; Paik, S. H. Journal of The Korean Society 2020, 64, 175.
  3. Ryu, E. J.; Paik, S. H. Journal of The Korean Society 2020, 65, 267.
  4. Ryu, E. J.; Paik, S. H. Journal of The Korean Society 2021, 65, 37.
  5. Ryu, E. J. The Implications of Perceiving about Ignorance of the Acid-base Models in Science Education. Ph.D. Korea National University of Education, 2021.
  6. Kim, S. K.; Choi, H.; Park, C. Y.; Paik, S. H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2019, 63, 56. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2019.63.1.56
  7. Cho, H. S.; Nam, J. H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2017, 37, 539. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.4.539
  8. Kang, N. H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2017, 37, 143. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0143
  9. Schwarz, C. V.; White B. Y. Cognition and Instruction 2005, 23, 165. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
  10. Passmore, C.; Gouvea, J. S.; Giere, R. Philosophy and Science Teaching; Springer: Dordrecht, 2014.
  11. Cartwright, N. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999.
  12. Chang, H. S. Is Water H2O?:Evidence, Realism and Pluralism; Springer Science & Business Media: London, 2012.
  13. Kim, S. K.; Park, C. Y.; Choi, H.; Paik, S. H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2019, 62, 226. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2018.62.3.226
  14. Kerwin, A. Knowledge 1993, 15, 166. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500204
  15. Smithson, M. Research Article 1993, 15, 133.
  16. Schwarz, C. V.; Reiser, B. J.; Davis, E. A.; Kenyon, L.; Acher, A Fortus, D.; Shwartz, Y.; Hug, B.; Krajcik, J. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2009, 46, 632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  17. Gogolin, S.; Kruger, D. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2018, 55, 1313. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21453
  18. Gobert, D.; Palant, A. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2004, 13, 7. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019635.70068.6f
  19. Edwards, J. Research in Science Education 1990, 20, 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02620481
  20. Firestein, S. Ignorance: How It Drives Science; Oxford University Press: USA, 2012.
  21. Firestein, S. Failure:Why Science Is So Successful; Oxford University Press: USA, 2015.
  22. Giere, R. N. Scientific Perspectivism; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2010.
  23. Brown, M. J. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2009, 40, 213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.03.001
  24. Wimsatt, W. C. Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2007.
  25. Thagard, P. The Cognitive Science of Science: Explanation, Discovery and Conceptual Change; MIT Press: Cambridge, 2012.
  26. Landa, I.; Westbroek, H.; Janssen, F.; van Muijlwijk, J.; Meeter, M. Science and Education 2020, 29, 1361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00145-3
  27. Paik, S. H.; Kim, S. K.; Kim, K. H. Journal of Chemical Education 2017, 94, 563. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00593
  28. Goodstein, M. P. Journal of Chemical Education 1970, 47, 452. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed047p452
  29. Thomson, J. J. Philosophical Magazine 1904, 7, 237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440409463107
  30. Stieglitz, J. The Elements of Qualitative Chemical Analysis; The Century Company: New York, 1911.
  31. VanderWerf, C. A.; Davidson, A. W.; Sisler, H. H. Journal of Chemical Education 1945, 22, 450. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed022p450
  32. Sisler, H. H.; VanderWerf, C. A. Journal of Chemical Education 1980, 57, 42. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed057p42
  33. Silverstein, T. P. Journal of Chemical Education 2011, 88, 279. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100777q
  34. Lewis, G. N. Journal of the American Chemical Society 1916, 38, 762. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja02261a002
  35. Lockwood, K. L. Journal of Chemical Education 1961, 38, 326. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed038p326
  36. Anselme, J.-P. Journal of Chemical Education 1997, 74, 69. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p69
  37. De Jong, O.; Acampo, J.; Verdonk, A. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1995, 32, 1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660321008
  38. Garnett, P. G.; Garnett, P. J.; Hackling, M. W. Studies in Science Education 1995, 25, 69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269508560050
  39. Garnett, P. J.; Treagust, D. F. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29, 121. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290204
  40. Kauffman, J. M. Journal of Chemical Education 1986, 63, 474. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p474
  41. Woolf, A. A. Journal of Chemical Education 1988, 65, 45. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed065p45
  42. Gilbert, J. K. International Journal of Science Education 2006, 28, 957. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
  43. Osterlund, L. L.; Berg, A.; Ekborg, M. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2010, 11, 182. https://doi.org/10.1039/C005467B
  44. Carr, M. Research in Science Education 1984, 14, 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356795
  45. Schmidt, H. J.; Volke, D. International Journal of Science Education 2003, 25, 1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000038240
  46. Kim, K. H.; Paik, S. H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2017, 61, 204. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2017.61.4.204
  47. Li, D. S.; Kim, Y. C. The Journal of Educational Research 2014, 12, 159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1925.10879587
  48. Creswell, J. W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Chosing Among Five Aproaches, 2nd ed.; Hakgisa: Seoul, 2013.
  49. Schmit, A.; Pollard J. WJEC GCSE Chemistry; Hodder Education Group: London, 2016.
  50. Chang, H. S.; Duncan, K.; Kim, K. H.; Paik, S. H. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2020, 21, 806. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00218A
  51. Uhm, J. H.; Kim, H. B. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2020, 40, 543. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.5.543