Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Analysis of Interpretation Processes Through Readers' Thinking Aloud in Science-Related Line Graphs

과학관련 선 그래프를 해석하는 고등학생들의 발성사고 과정 분석

  • Published : 2005.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Graphing abilities are critical to understand and convey information in science. And then, to what extent are secondary students in science courses able to understand line graphs? To find clues about the students' interpretation processes of the information in science-related line graphs, this study has the following research question: Is there a difference between the levels of complexity of good and poor readers as they use the thinking aloud method for studying cognitive processes? The present study was designed to provide evidence for the hypothesis that good line graph readers use a specific graph interpretation process when reading and interpreting line graphs. With the aid of the thinking aloud method we gained deeper insight into the interpretation processes of good and poor graph readers while verifying verbal statements with respect to line graphs. The high performing students tend to read much more information and more trend-related information than the low performing students. We support the assumption of differential line graph schema existing in the high performing students in conjunction with general graph schema. Also, high performing students tend to think aloud much more metacognitively than low performing students. High performing students think aloud a larger quantity of information from line graphs than low performing students, and more trend-related sentences than value-related sentences from line graphs. The differences of interpretation processes revealed between good and poor graph readers while reading and interpreting line graphs have implications for instructional practice as well as for test development and validation. Teaching students to read and interpret graphs flexibly and skillfully is a particular challenge to anyone seriously concerned with good education for students who live in an technological society.

선 그래프는 막대그래프와 달리 각 변인들의 변화에 기인한 경향을 보여준다. 따라서 선 그래프로부터 경향을 파악할 수 있는지의 여부는 중요하다. 본 연구의 목적은 선 그래프 도식을 지닌 학생들이 선 그래프를 읽고 해석할 때 선 그래프 도식을 지니지 못한 학생들과 비교하여 어떠한 사고과정을 거치는지 파악하는 것이다. 발성사고를 통하여 고등학생틀의 선 그래프 이해 수준과 선 그래프 유형에 따라 선 그래프를 읽는 사고 과정의 특징을 분석한 결과, 동일하게 주어진 시간 동안에 상위 그룹에 해당하는 학생들은 하위 그룹에 속하는 학생들보다 더 많은 문장을 발성사고하였으며, 하위 그룹의 학생들과 달리 적응단계에서 선 그래프의 유형, 경향, 라벨 등을 파악하는데 오랜 시간을 사용하였다. 또한 상위그룹의 학생들은 하위그룹의 학생들보다 초인지적인 문장을 발성사고하는 경우가 더 많았다. 선 그래프 도식을 지닌 학생들과 단순히 일반적인 그래프 도식을 지닌 학생들을 구별하고 그에 따라 정보를 전달하는 방식을 달리하는 융통성이 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김언주(1991). 인지심리학. 정음사
  2. 김영채 역(1997). 인지심리학-이론과 적용-. 박영사
  3. 김태선(1998). 고등학생들의 과학 관련 그래프 해석 능력. 한국교원대학교 석사학위 논문
  4. 김태선, 김범기(2002). 중고등학생들의 과학 그래프 작성 및 해석 능력. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(4), 768-778
  5. 김태선, 배덕진, 김범기(2002). 중학생의 그래프 능력과 논리적 사고력 및 과학 탐구 능력의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(4), 725-739
  6. 문충식, 김범기(1998). 선 그래프 해석과 이해의 지각.인지 과정에 관한 모형-힘과 운동 관련 선 그래프를 중심으로-. 물리교육, 16(2), 72-82
  7. 성태제(1995). 타탕도와 신뢰도. 양서원
  8. Beichner, R. J.(1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 803-815 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270809
  9. Berg, C. A., & Phillips, D. G.(1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 323-344 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310404
  10. Berg, C. A. & Smith, P.(1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free - response instruments. Science Education, 78(6), 527-554 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780602
  11. Bertin, J.(1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams networks maps(W. Berg, Trans.). The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI. (Original work published 1973)
  12. Brasell, H. M.(1990). Graphs, Graphing, and Graphers. In M. B. Rowe(Ed.), What Research Says to the Science Teacher, 6, 69-85. DC: National Science Teachers Association: Washington
  13. Brasell, H. M., & Rowe, M. B.(1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students, School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 63-70
  14. Breit, F.(1987). Graphing is elementary. Science and Children, May, 20-22
  15. Clement, J., Mokros, J. R., & Schultz, K.(1986, April). Adolescents' graphing skills: A descriptive analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. ED 264127
  16. Cohen, D.(1984). Graphing as a problem-solving strategy. Mathematics and Computer Education, 18, 21-29
  17. Fisher, M. A.(1992). Categorization, or schema selection in graph comprehension. A Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Reaearch Association, San Francisco, CA. ED 347176
  18. Jones, R. W., Warner, J. W., & Fankhauser, S. G.(1999). Investingating Student Understanding of Graphs: A Successful Methodology and Results of a Study, Paper presented at the Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston
  19. Kim, Tae-Sun & Kim, Beom-Ki.(2002a). Posing students cognitive processes for the line graph. An oral presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers(125th)
  20. Kim, Tae-Sun & Kim, Beom-Ki.(2002b). Secondary students cognitive processes for the line graph from graph components. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research of American Association of Physics Teachers(125th)
  21. Kim, Tae-Sun, Kim, Eun-Mi, & Kim, Beom-Ki.(2002). Students' reading order and viewing time in the line graph. Proceedings of selected research papers presented at the International Conference on Physics Education in Cultural Contexts
  22. Lohse, G. L.(1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0804_3
  23. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H.(1987). Student difficulties in connection graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics, American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503-513 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15104
  24. McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J.(1983). The construction and validation of the Test of Graphing in Science(TOGS). Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas
  25. McKenzie D., Padilla, M., & Shaw, E. L.(1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. School Science and Mathematics, 86(1), 20-26
  26. Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F.(1987). The impact of microcomputer - based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240408
  27. Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C.(1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), 491-506 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240509
  28. Pinker, S.(1983). Pattern Perception and the Comprehension of Graphs, National Institute of Education Rept. 1-46
  29. Pinker, S.(1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530-535 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1857983
  30. Reynolds, R. E., & Baker, D. R.(1987). The utility of graphing representations in text: Some theoretical and Empirical issues, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(2), 161-173 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240208
  31. Roth, W-M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K.(1999). Differences in Graph-Related Practices between High School Biology Textbooks and Scientific Ecology Journals, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 977-1019 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<977::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-V
  32. Schuotz, W., & Kulhary, R. W.(1994). Comprehension of Graphics. North-Holland Elsevier Science B. V. The Netherlands
  33. Shah, P.(1995). Cognitive processes in graph comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie - mellon university (UMI Dissertation services NO. 9622441)
  34. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., Shemesh, M., & Yang, J.(1988). Translation among symbolic representations in problem-solving. Revision of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Washington, D. C. ED 301451
  35. Wavering, M. J.(1989). Logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(5), 373-379 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260502
  36. Winn, W.(1980). The effect of block-word diagrams on the structuring of science concepts as a function of general ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(3), 201-211 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660170304