Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Characteristics of Explanatory Hypothesis Formation by Anxiety Types in High School Students Cognitive Conflict about Action-Reaction Task (I)

작용 반작용 과제에서 고등학생의 인지갈등 불안유형에 따른 설명가설 형성의 특성(I)

  • Published : 2004.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Based on conceptual change theory, cognitive conflict is known as an important factor for conceptual change even though there are still questions about its positive and negative effects on science learning. However there are little research which propose types of meaningful(constructive) cognitive conflict in learning science. The purpose of this study is to find out how are the anxiety types of cognitive conflict to which high school students respond in the action-reaction task, and to reveal what's the characteristic of the explanatory hypothesis according to the anxiety types. The result of this study indicated that first, the characteristics of the anxiety types of the cognitive conflict were classified as eight types. Especially the students who belong to the types of conviction of logical misconception and reasonable modification suggested explanatory hypothesis close to physical nature. On the other hand, the students who showed other types of anxiety except the two types of anxiety suggested temporary supported hypothesis or simple explanatory hypothesis based on students' observation and intuition. Finally we discussed the importance and the implication of the types of anxiety in applying the cognitive conflict strategy to science instruction.

과학학습에서 인지갈등은 개념변화의 중요한 필요조건으로 인식되고 있다. 그러나 아직까지 인지갈등 유형 중 어떤 갈등 유형이 과학학습과정에서 건설적인 갈등유형인가를 제안한 연구는 찾아보기 힘들다. 따라서 이 연구의 목적은 16명의 고등학생을 대상으로 작용 반작용의 법칙과 관련된 불일치 현상(선풍기-수레 문제)을 제시 한 후, 인지갈등의 불안요인 반응에 초점을 맞추어 인지갈등의 불안유형을 구분하고, 불안유형에 따라 학생이 제안하는 설명가설의 특징을 알아보고자 하였다. 연구결과 인지갈등의 불안 요인 반응에 대한 높 낮이에 따라 각각 네 가지 유형의 불안 유형을 확인하였으며, 각 불안유형에 따른 설명가설의 특징과 과학수업에서 인지갈등 수업전략을 적용할 때 중요하게 고려해야할 불안유형의 특성을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권재술(1989). 과학 개념의 한 인지적 모형. 물리교육, 7, 1-9
  2. 권재술(1992). 과학 개념 학습을 위한 수업 절차와 전략. 한국과학교육학회지, 12, 19-29
  3. 권재술, 이경호, 김연수(2003). 인지갈등과 개념변화의 필요조건과 충분조건. 한국과학교육학회지, 23, 574-591
  4. 김연수, 서상오, 이경호, 박현주, 권재술 (2001). 중등과학 교육에서 인지갈등 수업전략 활용 실태. 한국과학교육학회지 21, 400-410
  5. 김연수(2002). 인지갈등 불안 유형과 귀인의 동기 심리학적 요인에 따른 학생의 물리 개념 변화 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문
  6. 김범기, 권재술(1995). 과학개념과 인지적 갈등의 유형이 학생들의 개념변화에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지 15 ，472-486
  7. 노태희, 정은희, 강석진, 한채영(2002). 개념 학습에서 변칙 사례의 역할. 한국과학교육학회지, 22, 586-594
  8. 노태희, 임희연, 강석진, 김순주(2001). 학생의 인지적. 정의적 변인, 변칙 사례에 의한 인지갈등, 개념변화 사이의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 21, 658-667
  9. 박종원, 장병기, 윤혜경, 박승재(1993). 중학생의 빛과 그림자에 대한 증거평가. 한국과학교육학회지, 13, 135-145
  10. 박종원(2000). 학생의 과학적 설명가설의 생성과정 분석 - 과학적 가설의 정의와 특성을 중심으로 - 한국과학교육학회지. 20. 667-679
  11. 박종원(2001). 학생의 과학적 설명가설의 생성과정 분석 - 대학생의 반응 분석을 중심으로- 한국과학교육학회지 21, 609-621
  12. 이경호.(2000). 고등학생의 물리개념 변화에 미치는 인지갈등, 학습동기와 학습전략의 영향. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문
  13. 이용숙(1998) . 교육에서의 질적 자료의 분석. 이용숙. 김영천 편(1998), 교육에서의 질적 연구: 방법과 적용 (pp. 107-186). 서울: 교육과학사
  14. 이채은, 이경호, 김지나, 권재술(2001). 인지갈등 상황 제시유행에 따른 고등학생들의 역학 개념변화. 한국과학교육학회지, 21, 697-709
  15. 인지갈등전략 연구회 (2003). 선풍기를 이용하여 무풍지대 에서 빠져나올 수 있을까? 제 4차 한국과학교육학회 정기총회 및 하계학술대회 워크숍, 151-153
  16. Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F.(2000). Assessing affective characteristics in the schools. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate
  17. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C.(1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1
  18. Champagne, A. B., Gunstons, R. F.. & Kolpfer, L. E. (1985). Instructional Consequences of Students' Knowledge about Physics Phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Ed.) Cognitive Structure end Conceptual Change. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 61-90
  19. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F.(1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of EducalioI Research, 63, 1-49 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
  20. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F.(1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to amoalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
  21. Clark, R. B.(1986a). The answer in obvious, isn't it? The Physics Teacher, 24(1), 38-39. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2341931
  22. Clark, R. B.(1986b). Response. The Teacher, 24(7), 393
  23. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R.(1990). Applying the 'cognitive conflict' strategy for conceptual change Some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74, 555-569 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740506
  24. Druyan, S.(1997). Effect of the kinesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1083-1099 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1083::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-N
  25. Druyan, S.(2001). A comparison of four types of cognitive conflict and their effect on cognitive development. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 25, 226-236 https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000276
  26. Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C.(1988). Learning and instruction: an examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251-301 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058003251
  27. Guzzetti, B. J., & Glass, G. V.(1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative mtannalysis of instructional interventions from reading education abd science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-159 https://doi.org/10.2307/747886
  28. Hashweh, M. Z.(1986). Toward an explanation of conceptual change , European Journal of Science Education, 8, 229-249 https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080301
  29. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A.(1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00051837
  30. Hewitt, P.(1988). Figuring physics. The Physics Teacher, 26(1), 57-58
  31. Hewitt, P.(2003). Conceptual physics. (ninth edition). Addition-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc
  32. Jargodzki, C., & Potter, F.(2001), Mad about physics: braintwisters, paradoxes, and curiosities. New York: John Willey
  33. Kim, Y., Choi, W., Moon, S., Choi, H.(2001). Action and Reaction with a Fan and a Cart, Program and Abstracts of 2001 International Conference on Physics Education in Cultural Context, CheongJu
  34. Kwon, J., Lee, G., Park, H., Kim, J., & Lee, Y.(2000, April). The relationship between the characteristics of cognitive conflict and response to anomalous situations when learning science. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans
  35. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2003). Toward, an Understanding and use of cognitive conflict in science instruction(I), Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23, 360-374
  36. Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S., Kim, J., Kwon, H., & Park, H.(2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science class, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 585-603 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099
  37. Lee, Y., & Kwon, J.(2002). The effects of cognitive conflict on students' conceptual change in Physics, Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22, 923-943
  38. Limn, M.(2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instruction strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
  39. Limn, M., & Cerretero, M.(1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural science. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 213-230 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173085
  40. Mason, L.(2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Learning and Instruction, 11, 453-483 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00042-6
  41. Martinez, K., Schulkins , M.(1986). The H.M.S. Newton III an onboard-fan-powered sail cart. The Physics Teacher, 24(7), 393
  42. Niaz, M.(1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: A dialectic-constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 959-970 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320907
  43. Osborne, R. J., & Freyberg, P.(1985). Learning in science: The implication of children's science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann
  44. Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M., & Lee, M.(2001). Analysis of the students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1219-1236 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049097
  45. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A.(1982), Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 221-227
  46. Rutledge, C. T.(1986). The obvious answer is correct! The Physics Teacher, 24(7), 392
  47. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R.,(2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  48. Willingford(1986). Obvious?? The Physics Teacher, 24(7), 392
  49. Werner, O., & Schoepfle, G. M.(1987). Systematic Fieldwork. Newbury Park: Sage Publications