Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The Influences of Cognitive Conflict and Non-Cognitive Variables on Conceptual Change and the Sources of Situational Interest Induced by a Discrepant Event

인지갈등과 비인지적 변인이 개념변화에 미치는 영향 및 변칙사례에 의해 유발된 상황 흥미의 근원

  • Published : 2007.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the influences of cognitive conflict and non-cognitive variables induced by a discrepant event on process of conceptual change, and the processes that a discrepant event lead to situational interest. Seventh graders participated in this study. A preconception test was administered to select students possessing misconceptions about density. The tests of cognitive response and situational interest to a discrepant event were administered. After learning with a CAl program, the tests assessing attention and effort allocated to the CAl, and conceptual understanding were also administered. A path analysis revealed that cognitive conflict induced by a discrepant event caused situational interest, which in turn increased attention and/or effort and thus, resulted in conceptual change. The results of the path analysis on the processes in which a discrepant event led to situational interest suggested that novelty may be a primary source of situational interest. Novelty influenced situational interest directly as well as through attention demand, exploration intention, and instant enjoyment. Moreover, novelty exerted a direct effect on challenge, which in turn had negative effects on instant enjoyment directly as well as through cognitive conflict, and thus, decreased situational interest. However, the path coefficients of the latter were relatively smaller than those of the former. Educational implications are discussed.

이 연구에서는 변칙사례에 의해 유발된 인지갈등과 비인지적 변인이 개념변화 과정에 미치는 영향과 변칙사례가 상황 흥미를 유발하는 과정을 조사하였다. 중학교 1학년 학생들이 연구에 참여하였다. 밀도 개념에 대해 오개념을 지닌 학생들을 선별하기 위해 선개념 검사를 실시하였다. 변칙사례에 대한 인지적 반응검사와 상황 흥미 검사를 실시하였다. CAl 프로그램을 통해 학습하게 한 후, 주의집중 검사, 노력 검사, 개념 검사를 실시하였다. 경로 분석 결과, 변칙사례에 의해 유발된 인지갈등이 상황 흥미를 유발하고 이것이 개념학습 과정에서의 학생들의 주의집중과 노력에 영향을 미쳐 개념변화를 일으키는 것으로 나타났다. 변칙사례에 의해 처음으로 유발되는 것은 새로움이며, 새로움은 직접적으로 또는 주의집중 요구, 탐구 의도, 순간적 즐거움을 경유하여 상황 흥미를 불러일으키는 것으로 나타났다. 새로움은 도전에 직접적인 영향을 주고, 도전은 직접적으로 또는 인지갈등을 통해 순간적 즐거움에 부정적인 영향을 줌으로써 전체 흥미를 감소시키기도 하였다. 그러나 이 경로의 계수는 전자의 경로의 계수보다 상대적으로 작았다. 이에 대한 교육적 함의를 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석진, 신숙희, 노태희 (2002). 밀도 개념학습에서 자기 조절 전략과 인지갈등 및 개념변화의 관계. 대한화학회지, 46(1), 83-89
  2. 강훈식, 김민경, 차정호, 노태희 (2006). 변칙사례에 의한 인지적 반응 유형에 따른 정의적 반응 및 학생들 이 제시하는 효과적인 개념변화 교수-학습 전략. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(6), 723-73 1
  3. 권재술, 이경호, 김연수 (2003). 인지갈등과 개념변 화의 필요조건과 충분조건. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(5), 574-591
  4. 김계수 (2004). AMOS 구조방정식 모형 분석. 서울( 주) 데이터솔루션
  5. 이경호 (2000). 고등학생의 불리 개념변화에 미치는 인지갈등, 학습동기와 학습전략의 영향. 한국교원대학교 대학원 박사 학위 논문
  6. Ainley, M, Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545-561 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
  7. Chen, A, Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R P. (2001). An examination of situational interest and its sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(3), 383-400 https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158578
  8. 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
  9. Duit, R, & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
  10. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002151
  11. Hu, L. T, & Bentler, P. M (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
  12. Kang, S., Schannarm, 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. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C, Noh, T, & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students' cognitive and motivational variables on cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1037-1058 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038553
  14. Keller, J. M (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26-34 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02904345
  15. Keller, J. M (1993). IMMS: Instructional materials motivation survey. Florida State University.
  16. Kim. Y, & Kwon. J. (2004). Cognitive conflict and causal attributions to successful conceptual change in physics learning. The Korean Journal of the Association for Research in Science Education, 24(4), 687-708
  17. Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S.-S., Kim, J-W, Kwon, H.-G., & Park, H.-K. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary -level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585-603 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099
  18. 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
  19. Limon, M (2003). The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional conceptual change. In G. M Sinatra, & P. R Pintrich (Eels.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 133-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  20. Malpass, J. R (1994). A structural model of self -efficacy, goal orientation, worry, self-regulated learning, and high stakes mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California
  21. Pintrich, P. R (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 33-50). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd
  22. Pintrich, P. R, & Sinatra, G. M (2003). Future directions for theory and research on intentional conceptual change. In G. M Sinatra, & P. R Pintrich (Eels.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 429-441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  23. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455
  24. Sinatra, G. M, & Pintrich, P. R (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  25. Yarlas, A. S., & Gelman, R (1998). Learning as a predictor of situational interest. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 437405)