Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of Scientists' and Students' Responses to Discrepant Event and Alternative Hypothesis in the Conceptual Change Processes from the Phlogiston Theory to the Oxygen Theory

플로지스톤설에서 산소설로의 개념 변화 과정에서 변칙 사례와 대안 가설에 대한 과학자들과 학생들의 반응 비교

  • Published : 2006.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated students' responses to a discrepant event and an alternative hypothesis which had been presented in the conceptual change processes from the phlogiston theory to the oxygen theory, and compared them with scientists' responses. The data concerning scientists' responses to the discrepant event and the alternative hypothesis were gathered from the relevant literature on the history of science. Subjects were 148 eighth graders who possessed the target misconception about combustion through a preconception test. After having been presented with the discrepant event and the alternative hypothesis, students were asked to respond to the test of response to discrepant event. Although similar types of responses were obtained from both scientists and students, there was also a clear difference. Scientists tended to focus on explaining the problems of the discrepant event, whereas students tended to ignore and/or exclude the discrepant event in order to maintain their previous beliefs. Only a few students were also found to change their beliefs after having been presented with the alternative hypothesis.

이 연구에서는 플로지스톤설에서 산소설로의 개념변화 과정에서 제시된 변칙 사례와 대안 가설에 대한 학생들의 반응을 조사하고, 이를 과학자들의 반응과 비교했다. 변칙 사례와 대안 가설에 대한 과학자들의 반응은 과학사 관련 문헌에서 수집했다. 선개념 검사를 실시하여 연소에 대한 목표 오개념을 지닌 중학교 2학년 학생 148명을 선발했다. 학생들에게 변칙 사례와 대안 가설을 제시하고, 이에 대한 학생들의 반응을 조사했다. 연구 결과, 과학자들과 학생들에게서 유사한 반응 유형이 나타났지만, 동시에 명확한 차이점도 있었다. 과학자들은 변칙 사례의 문제점을 밝히고자 노력하는 경향이 있었지만, 학생들은 자신들의 초기이론에 대한 신념을 고수하기 위해 변칙 사례를 거부하거나 배제하는 경향이 있었다. 또한, 대안 가설을 접한 후에 자신의 신념을 바꾸는 학생은 일부에 불과했다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석진, 김순주, 노태희 (2001). 변칙 사례의 특성이 인지 갈등과 개념 변화에 미치는 영향. 대한화학회지, 45(6), 589-594
  2. 권재술 (1989). 과학 개념의 한 인지적 모형. 물리교육, 7(1), 1-9
  3. 노태희, 임희연, 강석진, 김순주 (2001). 학생의 인지적, 정의적 변인, 변칙 사례에 의한 인지 갈등, 개념변화 사이의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 21(4), 658-667
  4. 안기철 (1992). Lavoisier의 화학 방법론 고찰. 경북대학교 석사학위논문
  5. 이병윤 (1998) 라부아지에의 기체계량기 제작과 그 배경. 서울대학교 석사학위논문
  6. Basu, P. K. (2003). Theory-ladenness of evidence: A case study from history of chemistry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 351-368 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(03)00022-0
  7. Brewer, W. F. (2005). In what sense can the child be considered to be a 'little scientist?' Paper presented at the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, NJ
  8. Brewer, W. F., & Chinn, C. A. (1994). Scientists' responses to anomalous data: Evidence from psychology, history, and philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 304-313
  9. 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 Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
  10. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a 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
  11. Guerlac, H. (1961). Lavoisier-the crucial year: The background and origin of his first experiments on combustion in 1772. New York: Cornell University Press
  12. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 71-96 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.b3
  13. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press
  14. Kuhn, D. (1997). Constraints or guideposts? Developmental psychology and science education. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 141-150 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001141
  15. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  16. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11 (4-5), 357-380 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
  17. Mason, L. (2003). Personal epistemologies and intentional conceptual change. Mahwah: Erlbaum
  18. McCann, H. G. (1978). Chemistry transformed: The paradigmatic shift from phlogiston to oxygen. Norwood: Ablex
  19. Poirier, J. P. (1996). Lavoisier, chemist, biologist, economist. Philadelphia.: University of Pennsylvania Press
  20. Salzberg, H. W. (1991). From caveman to chemist: Circumstance and achievements. Washington: American Chemical Society Press
  21. Schufle, J. A., & Thomas, G. (1971). Equivalent weight from Bergman's data on phlogiston content of metal. Isis, 62(4), 499-506 https://doi.org/10.1086/350792
  22. Thagard, P. (1990). The conceptual structure of the chemical revolution. Philosophy of Science, 57(2), 183 -209 https://doi.org/10.1086/289543