Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Implications of the 'Sontanda' Phenomenon of Scientists for Science Education: Focusing on Ian Hacking's Creation of Phenomena

과학자의 '손탄다' 현상이 과학교육에 주는 함의 -이언 해킹의 현상의 창조를 중심으로-

  • Received : 2022.02.03
  • Accepted : 2022.04.19
  • Published : 2022.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the practice of scientists from the perspective of Ian Hacking's 'creation of phenomena'. Scientific phenomena, according to Hacking, are regular and do not exist in nature without the intervention of scientists or experimental tools. This study tries to derive scientific educational meaning by analyzing the thoughts and episodes of the 'Sontanda (inter-individual variability)' phenomenon experienced by four life scientists. The Sontanda phenomenon is a common term used by scientists to describe phenomena in which findings do not appear consistently even when studies are carried out using the same experimental procedure and materials. The following four educational implications were discovered as a result of the research. First, we confirmed the importance of embodied knowledge, or non-verbal knowledge, which solves issues by making appropriate judgments and reactions at all times, rather than simply becoming accustomed to the experimental method. This argues that propositional knowledge and non-verbal knowledge should be handled equally in order to provide students with a practical scientific inquiry. Second, we tried to reconsider the picture of the experiment. The phenomenon revealed in the interviews of scientists is rare, and it takes a long time to stabilize the phenomenon. On the other hand, the image of school experiments is always positive and consistent, necessitating a shift in perspective. Third, the precise meaning of scientific practice could be confirmed. This study confirms that scientists use their knowledge effectively in line with the circumstances, and we examined strategies to apply scientific practice to school instruction based on this. Finally, by provoking uncertainty, the Sontanda phenomena may give students with an opportunity to engage in meaningful scientific involvement. By breaking away from the cookbook experiment, this study expects school experimental education to help in efforts to experience scientific practice.

본 연구에서는 이언 해킹(Ian Hacking)의 '현상의 창조'의 관점으로 과학자의 실행을 살펴보았다. 해킹의 관점에 따르면 과학적 현상은 규칙적인 것으로 과학자의 개입이나 실험 도구 없이는 자연 상태에 존재할 수 없다. 본 연구는 네 명의 생명과학자가 직접 경험한 '손탄다' 현상에 대한 생각과 에피소드를 분석함으로써 과학 교육적 의미를 도출하였다. 손탄다 현상은 과학자들 사이에서 통용되는 은어로써 동일한 실험 방법과 재료를 가지고 실험을 수행함에도 결과가 일정하게 나타나지 않는 현상을 일컫는다. 연구 결과 다음과 같은 네 가지 교육적 시사점을 도출하였다. 첫째, 실험에서 단순히 실험과정에 익숙해지는 것을 넘어 매순간 적절한 판단과 반응을 통해 당면한 문제를 해결하는 체화된 지식, 즉 비언어적인 지식의 중요성을 확인하였다. 이는 학생들에게 실제적인 탐구 경험을 제공하기 위해서 명제적 지식과 더불어 비언어적인 지식을 균형 있게 다루어야함을 시사한다. 둘째, 실험의 이미지를 재고하고자 하였다. 과학자의 인터뷰에 의하면 현상은 드물게 나타나며 현상을 안정화하기까지는 오랜시간이 소요된다. 반면 학교 실험의 이미지는 늘 성공적이고 안정적이므로 이에 대한 관점의 변화가 요구된다. 셋째, 과학적 실천의 구체적인 의미를 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 과학자가 상황적 맥락에 맞게 지식을 적절하게 활용하는 것을 확인하였으며 이를 바탕으로 과학적 실천을 학교 교육에 적용시킬 방안에 대해 논의하였다. 마지막으로 손탄다 현상은 불확실성을 촉발함으로써 학생들을 과학적 참여로 이끄는 기회를 제공할 것으로 예상한다. 본 연구를 통해 학교실험 교육이 요리책식 실험을 탈피하여 학생들에게 과학적 실천을 경험시키려는 노력에 기여할 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ault Jr, C. R., & Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the Footprints Puzzle: The problematic persistence of science as process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94(6), 1092-1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20398
  2. Bae, S. S. (2013). The Meaning and Problems of Research Methods in Phenomenological Pedagogy. Journal of The Society of Philosophical Studies, 125, 191-214.
  3. Byun, T., Baek, J., Shim, H.-P., & Lee, D. (2019). An investigation on the implementation of the 'scientific inquiry experiment' of the 2015 revised curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(5), 669-679. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.5.669
  4. Buchwald, J. Z. (1979). The Hall effect and Maxwellian electrodynamics in the 1880's. Part I: The discovery of a new electric field. Centaurus, 23(1), 51-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.1979.tb00360.x
  5. Chang, H. (2012). Is water H2O?: Evidence, realism and pluralism (Vol. 293). Springer Science & Business Media.
  6. Chen, Y. C., & Qiao, X. (2020). Using students' epistemic uncertainty as a pedagogical resource to develop knowledge in argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2145-2180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1813349
  7. Choi, C. I, & Lee, S.-K. (2016). Reconsidering the Meanings of Experiments and Instruments Based on the Analysis of Chemistry Experiments in Textbooks. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(4).
  8. Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp. 529-556): Routledge.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  10. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. The nature of insight, 18, 365-395.
  11. Finley, F. N. (1983). Science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200105
  12. Ford, M. (2008). 'Grasp of practice' as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2), 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7
  13. Gee, B., & Clackson, S. G. (1992). The Origin of Practical Work in the English School Science Curriculum. School Science Review, 73(265), 79-83.
  14. Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne university press.
  15. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science: Cambridge university press.
  16. Hacking, I. (1984). Experimentation and scientific realism Science and the Quest for Reality (pp. 162-181): Springer.
  17. Han, M. (2020). Escaping Uncertainty: Elementary Students' Emotional-Cognitive Rebuttals in the Argumentation of. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 40(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.1.1
  18. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027980280201
  19. Kampourakis, K., & McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How it makes science advance. Oxford University Press.
  20. Kang, J. (2021). A Phenomenological Study on the Science Anxiety Experience of Science-Gifted Middle School Students. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 41(4), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2021.41.4.283
  21. Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1(3), 273-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430277
  22. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts: Princeton University Press.
  23. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125
  24. Lee, S. (2004). A Philosophical approach to experimentation. Seokwangsa.
  25. 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
  26. Lee, J.-W., & Oh, I. (2016). Phenomenological Study on a School Counselor's Professional Development Experience. Korean Journal of Counseling, 17(4), 351-372. https://doi.org/10.15703/kjc.17.4.201608.351
  27. Lee, J.-H. (2021). A self-narrative about "education" and "training" of basic military training: Reinterpretation of chemistry experiment through rethinking the concept of "training". Journal of Education & Culture (JOEC), 27(6), 715-737. https://doi.org/10.24159/JOEC.2021.27.6.715
  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. Lynch, M. (2017). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shoptalk in a research laboratory: Routledge.
  30. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS) Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26): Springer.
  31. Maxwell, J. C. (1873). A treatise on electricity and magnetism (Vol. 1): Clarendon press.
  32. Michael, J., & Forman, A. (2006). Redefining Disciplinary Learning in Classroom Contexts.
  33. Millar, R., Tiberghien, A., & Marechal, J. F. L. (2002). Varieties of labwork: A way of profiling labwork tasks. In Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 9-20). Springer, Dordrecht.
  34. Millar, R. (2005). What is 'scientific method' and can it be taught? Teaching science (pp. 172-185): Routledge.
  35. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning: National Academies Press.
  36. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  37. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states: The National Academies Press Washington, DC.
  38. Nott, M., & Smith, R. (1995). 'Talking your way out of it', 'rigging' and 'conjuring': what science teachers do when practicals go wrong. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069950170310
  39. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). When the black box springs open: practical work in schools and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 807-818. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180706
  40. Oh, P. S. (2020). A Critical Review of the Skill-Based Approach to Scientific Inquiry in Science Education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(2), 141-150. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.2.141
  41. Sanderson, B. A., & Kratochvil, D. W. (1971). Science-A Process Approach, Product Development Report No. 8.
  42. Schwab, J. J. (1982). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays: University of Chicago Press.
  43. Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science: Routledge.
  44. Song, J. (2006). J. J. Schwab's Life and His Ideas of Science Education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(7), 856-869.
  45. Song, J., Kang, S.-J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., ... & Joung, Y. J. (2019). Contents and features of 'Korean Science Education Standards (KSES)' for the next generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 465-478. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.3.465
  46. The Ministry of Education. (2015). Science curriculum. Sejong: The Ministry of Education.
  47. Tobin, K. (1984). Avoiding cookbook science. Science Activities, 21(2), 10-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.1984.9957976
  48. Wellington, J. (1981). What's supposed to happen, sir?: Some problems with discovery learning. The School Science Review, 63, 167-173.
  49. Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in school science. Practical work in school science: Which way now, 35-51.
  50. Wideen, M. F. (1975). Comparison of Student Outcomes for Science-A Process Approach and Traditional Science Teaching for Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grade Classes: A Product Evaluation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660120106
  51. Woolnough, B. E. (1983). Exercises, Investigations and Experiences. Physics Education, 18(2), 60-63. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/18/2/305
  52. Woolnough, B., & Allsop, T. (1985). Practical Work in Science: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Yang, I.-H., Jeong, J.-S., Kwon, Y.-J., Jeong, J.-W., Hur, M., & Oh, C.-H. (2006). An intensive interview study on the process of scientists' science knowledge generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(1), 88-98.