한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제44권3호
  • /
  • Pages.443-454
  • /
  • 2025
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초등예비교사의 과학적 추론 역량에 대한 잠재프로파일 분석

A Latent Profile Analysis of Pre-service Elementary Teachers' Scientific Reasoning Competence

  • Kim, Hansol (Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Yang, Ilho (Korea National University of Education)
  • 투고 : 2025.05.24
  • 심사 : 2025.07.03
  • 발행 : 2025.07.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 초등예비교사들의 과학적 추론 역량을 조사하여 분석하는데 목적을 두고 있다. 연구 대상은 중부권 소재 초등교사 양성 대학교에서 초등과학교육론을 수강하고 있는 116명이다. Krell 등(2018)이 개발한 과학적 추론 역량 검사 도구를 번역하여 측정 도구로 사용하였고, 잠재프로파일분석을 통해 역량 유형을 탐색하였다. 연구 결과 초등예비교사는 '고역량 집단'(잠재집단 1, n = 65)과 '저역량 집단'(잠재집단 2, n = 51) 두 유형으로 구분되었다. 다변량 분산분석 결과, 조사 계획하기 기술과 모델 목적 판단하기, 모델 검증하기, 모델 변화시키기 기술에서 집단 간 유의하고 큰 효과 크기가 확인되었으며(η2=.371-.586), 가설 생성과 자료 해석 기술에서는 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 이러한 결과는 예비교사 내부의 이질적 역량 패턴과 모델링 기반 추론 기술의 취약성을 시사하고 있다.

This study investigated and analyzed the scientific reasoning competencies of 116 prospective elementary teachers enrolled in an elementary science education course at a teacher education university in central Korea. The scientific reasoning competency test developed by Krell et al. (2018) was translated and used as the measurement tool, and latent profile analysis was conducted to identify competency types. The analysis revealed two distinct groups: a "high competency group" (n = 65) and a "low competency group" (n = 51). Multivariate analysis of variance found statistically significant large effect sizes (η2 = .371-.586) between the groups in the skills of planning investigations, evaluating the purposes of models, validating models, and revising models, but no significant differences in hypothesis generation or data interpretation skills. These findings suggest the presence of heterogeneous patterns of reasoning competencies among prospective teachers and highlight weaknesses in modeling-based reasoning skills.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 김한솔, 양일호(2024). 풍화와 침식에 의한 암석의 변화를 설명하는 모델 개발 수업안에 나타난 초등교사의 교수전략 특징. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 24(4), 691-703.
  2. Antonio, R. P., & Prudente, M. S. (2024). Effects of Inquiry-Based Approaches on Students' Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Science: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12(1), 251-281. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3216
  3. Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening?. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z
  4. Chan, K.K. H., Lau, D. S.P., & Van Driel, J. (2025). Different designs, different outcomes? A critical systematic review of interventions for preparing preservice science teachers to teach scientific models and modeling. Science Education, 109(2), 386-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21911
  5. Cheng, M. F., Wu, T. Y., & Lin, S. F. (2021). Investigating the relationship between views of scientific models and modeling practice. Research in Science Education, 51(Suppl 1), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09880-2
  6. Commeford, K., Brewe, E., & Traxler, A. (2022). Characterizing active learning environments in physics using latent profile analysis. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(1), 010113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010113
  7. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B.,Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., ··· & Eberle, J. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28-45.
  8. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
  9. Garcia-Carmona, A. (2023). Scientific thinking and critical thinking in science education: Two distinct but symbiotically related intellectual processes. Science & Education, 34, 1-19.
  10. Giere, R. N. (1999). Using models to represent reality. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41-57). Boston, MA: Springer US.
  11. Gray, C., & Kinnear, P. R. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics 19 made simple. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
  12. Hafizhah Putri, A., Samsudin, A., & Suhandi, A. (2022). Exhaustive Studies before COVID-19 Pandemic Attack of Students' Conceptual Change in Science Education: A Literature Review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(3), 808-829. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.151
  13. Harre, R. (2004). Modeling: Gateway to the unknown: A work by Rom Harre (Vol. 1). Gulf Professional Publishing.
  14. Hartmann, S., Upmeier, A., zu Belzen, A. U., Kruger, D., & Pant, H. A. (2015). Scientific Reasoning in Higher Education. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 223(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000199
  15. Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x
  16. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers' views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142
  17. Kang, N. H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers' conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario survey instrument. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 337-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9097-4
  18. Kara, S., & Aslan, O. (2024). Evaluation of the effect of in-class activity-based practices on scientific reasoning skills of pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 46(8), 773-794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2258253
  19. Kind, P. E.R., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of scientific reasoning: A cultural rationale for science education?. Science Education, 101(1), 8-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251
  20. Krell, M., Gohner, D., & Kruger, D. (2018). Modeling competence in biology education: Development and validation of a test instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(6), 1079–1102.
  21. Krell, M., Mathesius, S., van Driel, J., Vergara, C., & Kruger, D. (2020). Assessing scientific reasoning competencies of pre-service science teachers: Translating a German multiple-choice instrument into English and Spanish. International Journal of Science Education, 42(17), 2819-2841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1837989
  22. Krell, M., Redman, C., Mathesius, S., Kruger, D., & van Driel, J. (2020). Assessing pre-service science teachers' scientific reasoning competencies. Research in Science Education, 50, 2305-2329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9780-1
  23. Krell, M., Vorholzer, A., & Nehring, A. (2022). Scientific reasoning in science education: From global measures to fine-grained descriptions of students' competencies. Education Sciences, 12(2), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020097
  24. Kruger, D., Hartmann, S., Nordmeier, V., Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2020). Measuring scientific reasoning competencies. In: O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, H. Pant, M. Toepper and C. Lautenbach (Eds.), Student learning in German higher education (pp. 261–280). Wiesbaden: Springer.
  25. Kumar, P., Sahani, J., Rawat, N., Debele, S., Tiwari, A., Emygdio, A. P. M., ... & Pfautsch, S. (2023). Using empirical science education in schools to improve climate change literacy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 178, 113232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113232
  26. Lawson, A.E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150103
  27. Lawson, A. E. (2000). Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning, revised ed.
  28. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
  29. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The development of scientific thinking. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, 1-44.
  30. Lubke, G., & Muthen, B. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.21
  31. Mannel, S (2011) Assessing scientific inquiry. Development and evaluation of a test for the low-performing stage Berlin: Logos.
  32. Mathesius, S., Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Kruger, D. (2014). Competencies of biology students in the field of scientific inquiry: Development of a testing instrument. Erkenn. Biol, 13, 73-88.
  33. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
  34. Neumann, I. (2011). Beyond physics content knowledge: Modeling competence regarding nature of scientific inquiry and nature of scientific knowledge (Vol. 117). Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH.
  35. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
  36. National Research Council, Division on Earth, Life Studies, & Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Swine. (2012). Nutrient requirements of swine.
  37. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
  38. Oh, P. S. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers' perceptions on models used in science and science education. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(4), 450-466.
  39. Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
  40. Raftery, A. E. (1999). Bayes factors and BIC: Comment on "A critique of the Bayesian information criterion for model selection". Sociological Methods & Research, 27(3), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124199027003005
  41. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science education, 89(4), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
  42. Schel, J., & Drechsel, B. (2025). A latent profile analysis for teacher education students' learning: an overview of competencies in self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1527438. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1527438
  43. Schlatter, E., Molenaar, I., & Lazonder, A. W. (2021). Learning scientific reasoning: A latent transition analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, 102043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102043
  44. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., ... & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  45. Schwichow, M., Osterhaus, C., & Edelsbrunner, P. A. (2020). The relation between the control-of-variables strategy and content knowledge in physics in secondary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 63, 101923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101923
  46. Shofiyah, N., Jatmiko, B., Suprapto, N., Prahani, B. K., & Anggraeni, D. M. (2025). The use of technology to scientific reasoning in science education: A bibliometric and content analysis of research papers. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101534
  47. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  48. Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and "how to" guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445
  49. Tein, J. Y., Coxe, S., & Cham, H. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 640-657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781
  50. Upmeier zu Belzen, A., Van Driel, J., & Kruger, D. (2020). Introducing a framework for modeling competence. In Towards a competence-based view on models and modeling in science education (pp. 3-19). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  51. Van Horn, M. L., Jaki, T., Masyn, K., Ramey, S. L., Smith, J. A., & Antaramian, S. (2009). Assessing differential effects: applying regression mixture models to identify variations in the influence of family resources on academic achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016427
  52. Wellnitz, N (2012) Kompetenzstruktur und-niveaus von Methoden der naturwissen-schaftlichen Erkenntnisgewinnung Berlin: Logos.
  53. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: The impact of preservice instruction on teachers' understandings of model-based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783-835. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043004783
  54. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
  55. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99-149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497