Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Changes in Preservice Elementary Teachers' Epistemic Models of Experimental Activities Based on Repeated Experimental Experiences: Experiments on Temperature Changes in Air and CO2 by Terrestrial Radiation

초등예비교사의 반복 실험 경험에 따른 실험활동에 대한 인식적 모델 변화 분석 - 지구 복사에 의한 공기와 이산화탄소의 온도 변화 실험을 중심으로 -

  • Received : 2026.03.18
  • Accepted : 2026.04.09
  • Published : 2026.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined how preservice elementary teachers' epistemic models of experimental activities changed through repeated experimentation. Twelve preservice teachers individually conducted the same terrestrial radiation experiment comparing temperature changes in air and carbon dioxide three times. Data were collected through post-experiment interviews, observation notes, and performance records, and were qualitatively analyzed with a focus on procedural and meta-level aspects of experimentation. The results demonstrated that repeated experimentation reduced participants' initial burden in handling apparatus and procedures and supported their ability to adjust methods in light of the experimental purpose and validity of result interpretation. The criteria used to judge the importance of procedures and the success of the experiment were also shifted from a focus on successful completion to achieving the experimental purpose and ensuring the reliability of evidence. This suggests that repeated experimentation functions not merely as repetition but as an inquiry-oriented, metacognitive condition in which learners reflect on the outcomes and limitations and adjust subsequent performances accordingly. Accordingly, science teacher education should design of laboratory activities that intentionally incorporate repetition so that preservice teachers can understand experimentation as a purpose-driven process of generating evidence.

이 연구는 반복 실험 경험을 통해 초등예비교사의 실험활동에 대한 인식적 모델이 어떻게 변화하는지를 탐색하였다. 초등예비교사 12명은 동일한 지구 복사 실험에서 공기와 이산화탄소의 온도 변화를 비교하는 활동을 세 차례 개인별로 수행하였다. 사후 면담, 관찰 기록, 실험 수행 자료를 수집하여 실험 수행 측면과 메타적 측면을 중심으로 질적 분석을 실시하였다. 분석 결과, 반복 실험은 초기의 기구 사용 및 절차 수행 부담을 완화하고, 참여자들이 실험 목적과 결과 해석의 타당성에 비추어 실험 방법을 조정하도록 촉진하였다. 또한 실험 절차의 중요성과 성공을 판단하는 기준은 절차의 성공적 수행 중심에서 실험 목적 달성과 증거의 신뢰성 중심으로 재구성되었다. 이러한 결과는 반복 실험이 단순한 반복 수행을 넘어, 이전 수행의 결과와 한계를 성찰하며 이후 수행을 조정하는 탐구적 및 메타적 조건으로 기능할 수 있음을 시사한다. 이에 따라 교사교육에서는 예비교사가 실험을 절차 재현이 아니라 목적 중심의 증거 생성 과정으로 이해할 수 있도록, 반복을 의도적으로 포함한 실험 설계를 고려할 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육부(2022). 초⋅중등학교 교육과정 총론
  2. 박소현, 임성만, 김중복(2024). 과학 관련 경험과 인식을 중심으로 한 초등학생들의 과학 흥미 변화 과정 탐색. 현장과학교육, 18(4), 330-357. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.18.4.202410.330
  3. 양성호, 임차미(2022). 초등학교 교사의 과학 실험실 활용 수업 실태와 인식 분석, 그리고 증진 방안 탐색. 현장과학교육, 16(4), 459-471. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.16.4.202210.459
  4. 양일호, 조현준, 유영란(2007). 확인실험수업에서 나타나는 초등교사들의 교수 행동 절차 분석. 초등과학교육, 26(4), 418-427.
  5. 양일호, 조현준, 정진우, 허명, 김영신(2006). 학교과학교육에서 실험 활동의 목적: 전문가 커뮤니티를 통한 델파이 연구. 한국과학교육학회, 26(2), 177-190.
  6. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
  7. Bellocchi, A., Quigley, C., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2016). Exploring emotions, aesthetics and wellbeing in science education research (Vol. 13). Springer.
  8. Brownell, S. E., & Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525-544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234
  9. Carnduff, J., & Reid, N. (2003). Enhancing undergraduate chemistry laboratories: pre-laboratory and post-laboratory exercises. Royal Society of Chemistry.
  10. Dah, N. M., Noor, M. S. A. M., Kamarudin, M. Z., & Azziz, S. S. S. A. (2024). The impacts of open inquiry on students' learning in science: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 43, 100601.
  11. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
  12. Domin, D. S. (2007). Students' perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90027E
  13. Hartman, J. R., Nelson, E. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2022). Improving student success in chemistry through cognitive science. Foundations of Chemistry, 24(2), 239-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-022-09427-w
  14. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science education, 88(1), 28-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.v88:1
  15. Huang, Y. (2022). Effectiveness of inquiry-based science laboratories for improving teamwork and problem solving skills and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 329-357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.v59.3
  16. Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry teaching-science or alchemy?. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262-268. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p262
  17. Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748-769. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.v41:7
  18. Kastaun, M., Meier, M., Kuchemann, S., & Kuhn, J. (2021). Validation of cognitive load during inquiry-based learning with multimedia scaffolds using subjective measurement and eye movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 703857. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703857
  19. Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 301-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461565
  20. Kim, S. U. (2022). The types of peer scaffolding in scientific experimental activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(4), 594-614. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse
  21. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  22. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
  23. Kotsis, K. T. (2024). The significance of experiments in inquiry-based science teaching. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(2), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.2.815
  24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  25. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  26. Marzin, P., & de Vries, E. (2013). Students' design of a biometric procedure in upper secondary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 361-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9183-3
  27. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
  28. Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Commissioned paper-Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 308, 1-21.
  29. Oliveira, H., & Bonito, J. (2023). Practical work in science education: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1151641. https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.1.0023
  30. Rokos, L., & Zavodska, R. (2020). Efficacy of Inquiry-Based and "Cookbook" Labs at Human Physiology Lessons at University Level-Is There an Impact in Relation to Acquirement of New Knowledge and Skills?. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1909. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9124
  31. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., D avis, 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, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.v46:6
  32. Schwichow, M., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Hoffler, T., & Hartig, H. (2016). Teaching the control-of-variables strategy: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 39, 37-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.12.001
  33. Spaan, W., Oostdam, R., Schuitema, J., & Pijls, M. (2025). Thinking-back-and-forth in practical work experienced by students: identifying evidence-informed characteristics of good practices in secondary education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 43(1), 294-311.
  34. Stewart, B. Y. (1988). The surprise element of a student-designed laboratory experiment. Journal of College Science Teaching, 17, 269-270
  35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques.
  36. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  37. Wiggins, B. L., Sefi-Cyr, H., Lily, L. S., & Dahlberg, C. L. (2021). Repetition is important to students and their understanding during laboratory courses that include research. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(2), 10-1128. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00158-21
  38. 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.v92:5
  39. Yip, D. Y. (2005). Analysing laboratory manuals for an investigative approach. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 51(3), 34-38.
  40. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261