Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Characteristics of Modeling of Experiment in Case Analysis of Students' Open Inquiry and its Meaning on Science Education

학생의 자유 탐구 활동의 사례 분석을 통해 본 실험 모델링의 특징과 과학교육적 의미

  • Received : 2022.01.27
  • Accepted : 2022.04.04
  • Published : 2022.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of model of the experiment in students' open inquiry. The research is a reinterpretation of the data collected from the performance of a three-year research project under the theme of 'school science inquiry' the perspective of model of the experiment. The inquiry activities of a focus group made up of four students have been recorded seven times. The recorded files and transcribed copies were analyzed according to interpretive methods. Students' activities were divided into three modeling of the experiment units, considering the modeling unit that includes the process of starting from the problem until it gets solved. The results of the study include illuminating the dynamic process and characteristics of modeling of the experiment and discussing its educational meaning as a distributed cognitive system at each modeling unit. First, students, instruments, and the primitive form of calculation represented by the interaction between them turned out to be important factors in the distributed cognitive system that constitutes model of the experiment. Second, in the early stages, non-verbal activities were carried out in which students became familiar with instruments, and verbal quantitative signs were created when the activities were sufficiently carried out. The generated quantitative signs became a source of data and confidence that can be referenced in subsequent activities. Third, the specialization of instrumentalization occurred, and factors that were important in inquiry, such as variable control, appeared. The results of the study provide new implications for science education research and education, which have been centered on explanatory models, by unfolding the characteristics of model of the experiment that have not been noticed in science education through students' inquiry.

본 연구에서는 학생들의 자유 탐구 활동에서 나타나는 실험 모델링의 특징을 탐색하였다. 연구는 '학교과학탐구'라는 주제로 이루어진 3년의 연구 과제 수행에서 기수집한 자료를 '실험 모델' 관점에서 재해석한 것이다. 4명의 학생들로 구성된 1개 소집단이 7회에 걸쳐 수행한 탐구 활동을 녹화하고 녹음한 파일을 주된 자료원으로 하였으며, 녹화 및 전사본을 해석적인 방법에 따라 분석하였다. 문제 상황으로부터 출발하여 이를 해결하고 마무리되는 과정을 포괄하는 것을 모델링 단위로 볼 때, 학생들의 활동은 3개 실험 모델링 단위로 구분되었다. 연구의 결과는 각 모델링 단위에서 분산인지체계로서 실험 모델링의 역동적 과정과 특징을 조명하고 교육적 의미를 논하는 것을 포괄한다. 구체적으로는 첫째, 학생과 실험도구 그리고 그들 사이의 상호작용으로 나타나는 원시적 형태의 계산은 실험 모델링을 구성하는 분산인지체계의 중요한 요소로 드러났다. 둘째, 초기에 학생이 도구에 익숙해지는 비언어적인 활동이 이루어졌으며, 그 활동이 충분히 이루어졌을 때 언어적인 양적 기호가 창출되었다. 창출된 양적 기호는 이후 활동에서 참고할 수 있는 데이터와 자신감의 원천이 되었다. 셋째, 도구의 전용화가 발생하였으며, 변인통제와 같이 기존의 과학 탐구에서 중요하게 다룬 요소들이 나타났다. 연구의 결과는 기존의 과학교육에서 주목받지 못했던 실험 모델링의 특징을 학생 활동을 통해 펼쳐 보임으로써, 설명 모델 중심으로 이루어져왔던 과학교육 연구와 교육에 새로운 시사점을 제공한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년도 정부(교육부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 기초연구사업임(NRF-2020R1I1A1A01066598)

References

  1. Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2009). Scientific models in philosophy of science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  2. Bud, R., & Warner, D. (1998). Instruments of science. An historical encyclopedia. London and New York: Smithsonian Institution.
  3. Chae, D. H. (2004). The changes of preservice and inservice elementary school teacher' concepts of the solar system based upon their exposure to the earth motion centric solar system model. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(5), 886-901.
  4. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  5. Cho, H. S., & Nam, J. (2017). Analysis of trends of model and modeling-related research in science education in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 539-552. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.4.539
  6. Cho, J. I. (1995). The use of models and their effect on scientific understanding of diffusion and osmosis, and on scientific attitude. Biology Education, 23(1), 1-8.
  7. Clement, J. J. (2008). Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models in large group discussion. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 11-22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  8. Fujimura, J. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and "translation." In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp.168-211). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Giere, R. N. (2018). Models of experiments. In I. F. Peschard & B. C. van Fraassen (Eds.), The experimental side of modeling (pp. 59-70). MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  10. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert, & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp 3-17). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
  11. Gobert, J. D., O'Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B., Levy, S., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students' understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 653-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003720671
  12. Halloun, I. (2007). Modeling theory in science education (Vol. 24). Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
  13. Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 448-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600402
  14. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15129
  15. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2014). Determinism and underdetermination in genetics: Implication for students' engagement in argumentation and epistemic practice. Science & Education, 23(2), 465-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9561-6
  16. Jo, Y. H. (1999). Qualitative description, analysis, interpretation. The Korean Society For The Study of Anthropology of Education, 27-63.
  17. Johnson, S. D. (1987). Teaching problem solving. The Technology Teacher, 46(5), 15-17.
  18. Kang, E., Kim, C., Choe, S., Yoo, J., Park, H., Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2012). Small group interaction and norms in the process of constructing a model for blood flow in the heart. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 32(2), 372-387. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2012.32.2.372
  19. Kang, M. (2014). Abduction and forced choice: Empirical justification for logic of the subliminal. Semiotic Inquiry, 41, 9-30.
  20. Kim, C.-J., & Lee, S.-K. (2005). The characteristics of socio-scientific norms and discourses in the science classrooms: Case studies of beginning teachers. The Korean Society for the Study of Teacher Education, 22(3), 359-386.
  21. Kim, J. Y., Choe, S. U., & Kim, C. J. (2016). The effects of cogenerative dialogues on scientific model understanding and modeling of middle school students. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 37(4), 243-268. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2016.37.4.243
  22. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology: The final report of the APU design and technology project 1985-1991. School Examinations and Assessment Council, SEAC.
  23. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Lee, C. E., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Understanding the role of wonderment questions related to activation of conceptual resources in scientific model construction: Focusing on students' epistemological framing and positional framing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 471-483. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.3.0471
  25. Lee, D. S. (2009). Sign, object And being. Journal of East-West Communication Council, 12, 91-118.
  26. Lee, J., Noh, T, & Lee, S.-K. (2017). The characteristics of instrumental genesis appearing in the processes of high school students' school scientific inquiries. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 37(6), 971-980. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.6.971
  27. Lee, K.-J., Lee, K.-H., Lee, J.-C., & Kim, J.-H. (1989). A study on the improvement of science education with experimental model and it's programming(I). Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 9(2), 13-27.
  28. Lee, S. (2000). The nature and structure of experimentation: Epistemic approach founded on theory-network. (Doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  29. Lee, S. (2004). Philosophical understanding of doing experience. Korea: Seokwangsa.
  30. Lee, S. (2009). Phenomena and instruments. Korea: Hanul academy.
  31. Lee, S. (2015). Materiality of science technologized. Journal of the Society of Philosophical Studies, 111, 123-148.
  32. Lee, S., Kim, C. J., Choe, S. U., Yoo, J., Park, H., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2012). Exploring the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 805-822. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2012.32.5.805
  33. Lee, S.-K. (2006). The patterns and the characteristics of students' Interactive argumentation in the small-group discussions. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2006.50.1.079
  34. Lee, S.-K., Yu, E.-J., Choi, J.-R., Kim, C.-J., Han, H.-J., & Shin, M.-K. (2010). Exploring science teacher' epistemological understanding of science and science teaching and learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 218-233. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2010.30.2.218
  35. Lopes, J. B., & Costa, N. (2007). The evaluation of modelling competences: Difficulties and potentials for the learning of the sciences. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 811-851. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855385
  36. Mendonca, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2011). Contributions of the model of modelling diagram to the learning of ionic bonding: Analysis of a case study. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 479-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9176-3
  37. MOE (Ministry of Education) (2015). 2015 Revised science national curriculum. Ministry of Education.
  38. Morris, C. (1946). Signs, language and behavior. N.Y.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  39. Nagel, E. (1960). Logic without metaphysics. Philosophy, 35(132).
  40. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  41. No, J. H. (1996). The effects of the engineering model and science model on the children's science achievement and the science-related attitude. (Unpublished master's theses). Korea National University of Education.
  42. Park, H., Choi, J., Kim, C., Kim, H. Yoo, J., Jang S., & Choe, S. (2016). The change in modeling ability of science-gifted students through the co-construction of scientific model. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.1.0015
  43. Park, M Y. (2014). The division of calculation and experiment in the mathematical proof - with priority given to Wittgensteins LFM and RFM -. Philosophical Investigation, 36, 121-146. https://doi.org/10.33156/PHILOS.2014.36..004
  44. Passmore, C., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577842
  45. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  46. Pruitt, S. L. (2014). The next generation science standards: The features and challenges. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9385-0
  47. Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Clement, J., & Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2008). An instructional model derived from model construction and criticism theory. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 23-43). Netherlands: Springer.
  48. Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (1994). Mathematization of experience in a grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 293-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310308
  49. Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998), Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068001035
  50. Schwarz, C. V. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720-744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20324
  51. 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.
  52. Suppes, P. (1962). Models of data. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the 1960 international conference (pp. 252-261). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  53. Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science. The MIT Press.
  54. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  55. Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. London: Sage.
  56. Yang, C. H., Kim, S. Y., Jo, M. J., & Noh, T. H. (2016). The characteristics of group and classroom discussions in the scientific modeling of the particulate model of matter. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 361-369. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.3.0361
  57. Yeu, H. (2016). Natures and principles of meaning interpretation in qualitative research: Based on the hermeneutics of Heidegger and Gadamer. Anthropology of Education, 19(4), 1-40.