한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제22권2호
  • /
  • Pages.314-335
  • /
  • 2002
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지

학생들의 사전 지식이 밀도과제의 과학적 추론에 미치는 영향

Effects of Students' Prior Knowledge on Scientific Reasoning in Density

  • 발행 : 2002.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of students' prior knowledge on scientific reasoning process performing a task of controlling variables with computer simulation and to identify a number of problems that students encounter in scientific discovery. Subjects for this study included 60 Korean students: 27 fifth-grade students from an elementary school; 33 seventh-grade students from a middle school. The sinking objects task involving multivariable causal inference was used. The task was presented as computer simulation. The fifth and seventh-grade students participated individually. A subject was interviewed individually while the investigating a scientific reasoning task. Interviews were videotaped for subsequent analysis. The results of this study indicated that students' prior knowledge had a strong effect on students' experimental intent; the majority of participants focused largely on demonstrating their prior knowledge or their current hypothesis. In addition, studnets' theories that were part of one's prior knowledge had significant impact on formulating hypotheses, testing hypothesis, evaluating evidence, and revising hypothesis. This study suggested that students' performance was characterized by tendencies to generate uninformative experiments, to make conclusion based on inconclusive or insufficient evidence, to ignore, reject, or reinterpret data inconsistent with their prior knowledge, to focus on causal factors and ignore noncausal factors, to have difficulty disconfirming prior knowledge, to have confirmation bias and inference bias (anchoring bias).

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K.(1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal: 31. 313-337 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031002313
  2. Champagne, A. B., & Klopfer, L. E.(1983). Naive theories and science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 264)
  3. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F.(1998), An empirical test of taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 623-654 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
  4. Derry, S. J.(1996), Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31, 163-174 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_2
  5. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M.,(1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research. 69 (2), 145-186 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069002145
  6. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.(1994), Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12
  7. Gauld, C.(1986). Model, meters and memory. Research in Science Education, 16, 49-54 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356817
  8. Germann, P. J., & Odom, A. L.(1996). Student performance on asking questions, identifying variables, and formulating hypotheses. School Science & Mathematics, 96 (4), 192-201 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10224.x
  9. Gower, B.(1997). Scientific method: An historical and philosophical introduction. London, UK: Routledge
  10. Hackling, M. W. & Garnett, P. J.(1995), The development of expertise in science investigation skills. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41 (4), 80-86
  11. van Joolingen, W. R., & de long, T.(1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389-404 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116355
  12. van Joolingen, W. R.. & de long, T.(1993). Exploring a domain through a computer simulation: Traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad. In D. Towne, T, de Jong, & H. Spada (Eds.) , Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 191-206). Berlin, Germany: Springer- Verlag
  13. Keys, C. W.(1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1003-1022 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310912
  14. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K.(1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48 https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9
  15. Klahr, D.. Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K.(1993), Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146 https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1003
  16. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W.(1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing, Psychological Review, 94, 211-228 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211
  17. Kuhn, D.(1989), Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674
  18. Kuhn, D.. Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M.(1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego Academic Press
  19. Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A, & Andersen, C.(1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 60 (4), 1-128 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1995.tb00222.x
  20. Kuhn, D.. Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M.(1992), Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning, Cognition and Instruction, 9, 285-327 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0904_1
  21. Lawson, A. E.(1993). Deductive reasoning, brain maturation, and science concept acquisition: Are they linked? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (9), 1029-1051 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300904
  22. Lawson, A. E., Clark, B., Cramer-Meldrum, E., Falconer, K. A., Sequist, J. M., & Kwon, Y. J.(2000). Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1). 81-101 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200001)37:1<81::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-I
  23. Linn, M. C.(1990). What constitutes scientific thinking? Contemporary Psychology, 35, 16-17 https://doi.org/10.1037/028140
  24. Millar, R., & Driver, R.(1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268708559938
  25. Niaz, M.(1992). From Piaget's epistemic subject to Pascual-Leone's metasubject: Epistemic transition in the constructivist-rationalist theory of cognitive development. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 443-457 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599208246908
  26. Niaz, M. (1994). Enhancing thinking skills: Domain specific/domain general strategies-A dilemma for science education. Instructional Science, 22, 413-422 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00897976
  27. Norman, O.(1997). Investigating the nature of formal reasoning in chemistry: Testing Lawson's multiple hypothesis theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (10), 1067-1081 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1067::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-P
  28. Novak, J. D.: Gowin, D. B.(1984). Learning how to learn: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U. K.
  29. Park, J. W., Chang, B. K., Yoon, H. K., & Pak, S. J.(1993). Middle school student's evidence evaluation about light and shadow. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 13, 135-145
  30. Penner, D. E., & Klahr, D.(1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development. 67, 2709-2727 https://doi.org/10.2307/1131748
  31. Reimann, P.(1991). Detecting functional relations in a computerized discovery environment. Learning and Instruction, 1, 45-65 https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(91)90018-4
  32. Schauble, L.(1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 3-57
  33. Schauble, L.. Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S.. & John, J.(1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1
  34. Schauble, L.. Glaser, R., Raghavan. K.. & Reiner, M.(1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 201-239 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0102_3
  35. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K.(1991). Student' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 859-882 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280910
  36. Smith, E. E.. & Jonides, J.(1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 5-42 https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0658
  37. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S.(1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753-766 https://doi.org/10.2307/1131175
  38. Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M.(1995). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Paper presented at the 26th annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Bendigo, Victoria
  39. Waltz. J. A., Knowlton, B. J.. Holyoak, K. J., Boone. K. B., Mishkin, F. S., Santos. M., Thomas. C. R.. & Miller. B. L.(1999). A system for relational reasoning in human prefrontal cortex. American Psychological Society, 10 (2), 119-125
  40. Yip, D. Y.(1999a). Assessing and developing the concept of negative experimental results in science teachers. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45 (4), 35-41
  41. Yip, D. Y.(1999b). Assessing the concept of controlled experiments in science teachers. Journal of Biological Education, 33 (4), 204-208 https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1999.9655667