Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The effect of practicing the authentic open inquiry on compositions of laboratory reports

학생들의 보고서 쓰기에 대한 개방적 참탐구 활동 수행의 효과

  • Published : 2009.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the characteristics of scientists' writing on the laboratory reports written in the authentic open inquiry, and explored the possibility that the class discussion after the inquiries could influence the laboratory report writing. The samples were 131 10th graders in a science high school in Seoul. The control group (n=45) practiced traditional school science inquiries, the experimental group 1 (n=43) practiced the authentic open inquiries, and the experimental group 2 (n=43) practiced the authentic open inquiries and the class discussion after the laboratory activities. Their laboratory reports were analyzed into three parts - prediction (prediction with background and apposite description), data analysis (data transformation and critical analysis), and conclusion (objective description based on evidence). The frequency of the characteristics of scientist's writing in the experimental group was higher than the control group. Particularly, the differences of the prediction with background (p<.01) and the critical analysis of data (p<.05) were statistically significant. However, the frequency of writing the conclusion based on evidence was very low in all of the three groups. The result from comparing descriptions of reports showed that the writing prediction in experimental groups were more elaborate, and the data transformation in experimental groups were more correct, and the evaluation to data in experimental groups were more critical than the control group. And the descriptions of the critical evaluation to data and the finding flaw in methods were found in experimental groups 2, indicating that the class discussion can stimulate students' scientific thinking.

이 연구에서는 개방적 참탐구 활동을 수행한 학생들의 탐구보고서에서 과학자들의 보고서 쓰기에서와 같은 특징이 나타나는지 살펴보고, 개방적 참탐구 활동 수행 후 실시한 학급 토론활동이 탐구보고서 쓰기에 미치는 효과에 대해서 알아보았다. 서울시 소재 과학고등학교 1학년 학생들을 대상으로 비교집단(전통적 학교탐구 수행, n=45), 실험집단 1(개방적 참탐구 활동 수행, n=43), 실험집단 2(개방적 참탐구 활동 수행 후 학급토론 실시, n=43)로 구분하여, 탐구를 수행하게 한 후 작성한 보고서를 분석하였다. 보고서 분석은 실험 결과에 대한 예상하기(근거제시 및 기술의 타당성), 데이터 해석하기(데이터전환 및 비판적 해석), 결론쓰기(실험결과에 기초한 객관적 진술)를 중심으로 이루어졌다. 그 결과 실험집단에서 과학자들의 보고서쓰기 특징이 나타나는 빈도가 비교집단보다 높게 나타났다. 특히 '근거를 제시하여 예상하기(p<.01)'와 '데이터에 대한 비판적인 평가(p<.05)'에서 유의미한 차이를 나타내었다. 그러나 결론쓰기에서는 세 집단 모두 실험결과에 기초하여 객관적으로 기술하는 빈도가 아주 낮게 나타났다. 보고서의 기술 내용면에서는, 실험집단에서 실험결과에 대한 예상이 훨씬 더 정교하게 기술되어 있었고, 데이터 전환의 정확성과 데이터에 대한 비판적 해석을 볼 수 있었다. 그리고 실험집단 2의 학생들의 보고서에서는 데이터에 대한 비판적 해석, 실험의 오차에 대한 기술을 볼 수 있었고, 이는 학급 토론활동이 학생들에게 과학적 사고를 하게 하는데 효과적임을 의미한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김미경 (2008). 개방적 참탐구 활동에서 과학고등학교 학생들의 과학에 대한 인식론적 이해. 서울대학교 박사학위 논문
  2. 김태선, 고수형, 김범기 (2005). 고등학생들의 그래프 능력과 과학탐구능력 및 과학 학업 성취도의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(5), 624-633
  3. 김희경 (2003). 중학생의 동료 간 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 물리탐구: 조건, 특징, 역할을 중심으로. 서울대학교 박사 학위 논문
  4. 박승재, 조희형 (2000). 과학론과 과학교육(제2판). 서울: 교육과학사
  5. 서정희, 문경원, 류선화, 김영수 (2007). 중등 과학교사의 컴퓨터 접속 실험에 대한 인식 및 활용 실태조사 연구. 한국생물교육학회지, 35(2), 253-265
  6. 조희형, 최경희 (2001). 과학교육총론. 서울: 교육과학사. 73-82
  7. 조희형, 최경희 (2007). 과학교육의 이론과 실제. 서울: 교육과학사. 420-421
  8. American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) (1990). Science: A process approach(Ⅱ). Washington D.C.: AAAS
  9. Bazerman, C. (1998). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
  10. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/ culture/ power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  11. Chin, C., Brown, D. E., & Bruce, B. C. (2002). Student-generating questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education 24(5), 521-549 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095249
  12. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. Y. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcome from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education,26(2), 131-149 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070252
  13. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  14. Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6
  15. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  16. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press
  17. Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (1993). Language and literacy learning in the early years: An integrated approach. Orlando, FL: Holts, Rinehart, and Winston
  18. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336643
  19. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
  20. Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W.-M. (1996). Interactions in an open-inquiry physics laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 423-445 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180403
  21. Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children’s journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43-69 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<43::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-I
  22. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  23. Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils’written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173-192 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210163251
  24. White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 761-774 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180703