Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Processes in Students' Scientific Understanding Through Reading Scientific Texts -Focused on Literature Review-

과학문장 읽기를 통한 학생들의 과학적 이해 과정 분석 - 문헌 연구를 중심으로 -

  • Received : 2009.07.15
  • Accepted : 2009.12.14
  • Published : 2010.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Scientific texts are some of major sources for scientific understanding. Therefore, reading scientific texts should be considered as an important learning activity. However, there is little research about reading scientific text in Korea. In this study, as a starting point for research about reading scientific text, lists of scientific text constituents and scientific text functions are suggested based on a comprehensive literature review. The study also reviewed how scientific text structure, familarity of scientific text and analogy involved in scientific text can affect students' scientific understanding through reading scientific text. Finally, further study plans, such as analysis of actual science textbooks using the lists suggested in this study as well as the investigation of actual students' thinking processes when reading scientific text, were described.

과학문장은 과학적 이해를 위한 중요한 정보원이고 따라서 과학문장 읽기는 과학적 이해를 위해 중요한 학습활동 중의 하나이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 국내에서는 과학문장 읽기에 대한 연구가 거의 없었다. 이에 본 연구에서는 문헌 연구를 통해 6개(소항목 10개)로 구성된 과학문장의 구성요소와 5개 (소항목 18개)로 구성된 과학문장의 기능에 대한 종합적인 리스트를 제안하였다. 그리고 과학문장의 구조와 흥미, 친숙도, 비유 등이 과학문장 이해에 미치는 영향을 문헌 조사하여 종합 정리하였다. 본 연구는 과학문장 읽기에 대한 일련의 연구의 첫출발이다. 따라서 어떠한 후속연구가 진행되고 또 진행될 것인지도 함께 소개하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육부 (2007). 과학과 교육과정: 교육인적자원부고시 제 2007-79, 교육인적자원부.
  2. 장명덕, 정철, 정진우 (1999). 초등학생의 읽기 능력과 과학 탐구 능력 및 과학 성취도와의 관계, 한국지구과학회지, 29(2), 137-142.
  3. 장명덕, 홍상욱, 정진우 (2002). 중학교 2학년 과학영재들의 과학지식에 대한 과학철학적 관점과 이에 대한 토론 및 읽기 활동의 효과, 한국지구과학회지, 23(5), 397-405.
  4. 전화영, 여상인, 우규환 (2002). 과학자 읽기 자료의 도입이 과학자의 이미지와 과학에 대한 태도에 미치는 효과, 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 22-31.
  5. 정철 (2002). 설명적 텍스트에 의한 중학생의 과학지식 이해에서 인지적 흥미와 읽기 동기의 영향, 자연과학지, 19(1), 109-127.
  6. 한안지, 이해순 (2001). 과학학습과 읽기자료 활용의 효과, 과학교육논총(인천교육대학교 과학교육연구소), 13, 159-178.
  7. 홍상욱, 임은경, 장명덕, 정진우 (2004). 해석적인 서술방식으로 구성된 과학 읽기 자료가 고등학생의 과학철학적 관점에 미치는 영향, 한국과학교육학회지, 24(2), 234-240.
  8. Alexander, P.A., & Kulikowich, J.M. (1991). Domain-specific and strategic knowledge as predictors of expository text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 165-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969109547735
  9. Alexander, P.A., & Kulikowich, J.M. (1994). Learning from physics text: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 895-911. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310906
  10. Alverman, D.E., & Hynd, C.R. (1989). effects of prior knowledge activation models and text structure on nonscience major's comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational research, 83, 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885937
  11. Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Sinatra, G.M., & Loxterman, J.A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspectives: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3), 251-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/747763
  12. Bulman, L. (1985). Teaching language and study skills in secondary science. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
  13. Byrne, M., Johnston, A.H., & Pope, A. (1994). Reasoning in science: a language problem revealed? School Science Review, 75(272), 103-107.
  14. Cassels, J.R.T., & Johnstone, A.H. (1985). Words that matter in science, A Report of a Research Exercise. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
  15. Chambers, S.K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2<107::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  16. Chambliss, M.J. (2002). The characteristics of well-designed science textbooks. In J. Otero, J.A. Leon, A.C. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 51-72). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Chen, C. (1974). How Do Scientists Meet Their Information Needs? Special Libraries, 65(7), 272-80.
  18. Chiappetta, E.L., Sethna, G.H, & Fillman, D.A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks provide a balance of scientific literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 787-797. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300714
  19. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
  20. Cook, L.K., & Mayer, R.E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448-456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.448
  21. Davis, F., & Greene, T. (1984). Reading for Learning in the Sciences. Edin역호: Oliver and Boyd.
  22. Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J.H. (1988b). Novice rules for assessing importance on scientific texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 288-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90056-3
  23. Dee-Lucas, D., Larkin, J.H. (1986). Novice strategies for processing scientific texts. Discourse Processes, 9, 329-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538609544646
  24. Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  25. Freebody, P., & Anderson, R.C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277-294. https://doi.org/10.2307/747389
  26. Gardner, P.L. (1977). Logical connectives in science - a summary of the findings. Research in Science Education, 7, 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02643108
  27. Garner, R., Alexnader, P.A., Gillinggham, M.G., Kulikowich, J.M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643-659. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003643
  28. Garner, R., Gillingham, M.G., & White, C.S. (1989). Effects of "seductive details"on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0601_2
  29. Gaskins, I.W., Guthrie, J.T., Satlow, E., Ostertag, J., Six, L., Byrne, J., & Connor, B. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Golas, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 31(9), 1039-1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310914
  30. Glynn, S.M., Muth, K.D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057-1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915
  31. Graesser, A.C., Godron, S.E., & Brainerd, L.E. (1992). Quest: A model of question answering. Computers and Mathematics With Applications, 23, 733-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-1221(92)90132-2
  32. Graesser, A.C., Leon, J.A., & Oteron, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, Leon, J.A., & A.C. Gresser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 1-18). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  33. Guzzetti, B.J., Snyder, T.E., Glass, G.V., & Gamas, W.S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative metaanalysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117-155.
  34. Hallyday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2005). Fundamentals of Physics (7th Ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  35. Hanson, C.W. (1964). Research on users' needs: where is it getting us? ASLIB Proceedings, 64-79.
  36. Hare, V.C., Rabinowitz, M., & Schieble, K.M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 72-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/748011
  37. Harms, N.C., & Yager, R.E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, No. 471-14776.
  38. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational psychology, 89, 92-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92
  39. Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. (New York: The Free Press)
  40. Henderson, J., & Wellington, J. (1998). Lowering the language barrier in learning and teaching science. School Science Review, 79(288), 35-46.
  41. Holcomb, P.J., Kounios, J., Anderson, J.E., & West, W.C. (1999). Dual-coding, contextavailability, and concreteness effects in sentence comprehension: an electrophysiological investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 25, 721-742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.3.721
  42. Hynd, C.R., McWhorter, J.Y., Phares, V.L., & Suttles, C.W. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 933-946. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310908
  43. Jeong, Hyun Suk, & Park, Jongwon. (unpublished). Guideline and recommendations for the effective use of an everyday context in teaching physics.
  44. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758-768. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1037
  45. Koch, A., & Eckstein, S.G. (1995). Improvement of reading comprehension of physics texts by students' question formulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 473-485.
  46. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  47. Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., & Kealy, W.A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 47-62.
  48. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (edited by J. Worrall & G. Currie). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Lemke. J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in science text. In J.R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science (pp. 87-113). NY: Routledge.
  50. Lunzer, E., & Gardner,K. (1979). The Effective Use of Reading. London: Heinemann Educational Books for the School Council.
  51. Marshall, S., Gilmour, M., & Lewis, D. (1991). Words that matter in science and technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 91(9), 5-12.
  52. Mayer, R.E. (1985). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problemsolving performance? Part I. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.), Understanding Expository Text (pp. 65-87). Hissdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  53. McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Sinatra, G.M., Loxterman, J.A. (1992). The contributions of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79-93.
  54. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Butler Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, backgound knowledge and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
  55. Meyer, B.J.F., Freedle, R.O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational research Journal, 21, 121-143. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121
  56. Meyerson, M.J., Ford, M.S., & Ward, M.A. (1991). Science vocabulary knowledge of third and fifth grad students. Science Education, 75(4), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750404
  57. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  58. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  59. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept MapsTM as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  60. Osborne, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining Science in the Classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  61. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
  62. Park, Jongwon, and Han, Sooja. (2002). Deductive reasoning to promote the change of concept about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 593-610. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110074026
  63. Park, Jonwon & Lee, Imook (2004) Analyzing cognitive or non-cognitive factors involved in the process of physics problem solving in an everyday context. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1577-1596. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000230767
  64. Sadoki, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5th ed.) (pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  65. Sadoki, M., Goetz, E.T., & Fritz, J.B. (1993). Impact of concreteness, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.291
  66. Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary - Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review 14(1), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013136727916
  67. Sadoki, M., Goetz, E.T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85
  68. Song, Jinwoong, Park, Jongwon, Kwon, Sunggi, & Chung, Byunghoon. (2001). Idealization in Physics: Its types, roles and implications to physics learning. In Pinto, R., & Surinach, S. (Eds.), Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000. (pp. 359-366). Paris: Elsevier.
  69. Spiegel, G.F., Jr., Barufaldi, J.P. (1994). The effects of a combination of text structure awareness and graphic postorganizers on recall and retention of science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 913-932. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310907
  70. STAO (The Science Teachers'Association of Ontario) (2007). Literacy Through Science and Technology (K-8) and Science (9-12). Retrieved in http://www.stao.org/resources/positionstatements/ Literacy%20Through%20Science%2 0and%20Technology.pdf
  71. Verdi, M.P., Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., Rittschof, K.A., & Johnson, R.J. (1996). Text learning using scientific diagrams:implications for classroom use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 487-499. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0033
  72. Walker, J. (1989). Getting them unstuck: some strategies for the teaching of reading in science. School Science and Mathematics, 89, 130-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1989.tb11900.x
  73. Wallace, C.S. (2004a). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: authenticity, multiple discourses, and the "third space". Science Education, 88, 901-914. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20024
  74. Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(91)90031-F
  75. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Philadelphia: Ophn University Press.
  76. Woodward, A., & Elliot, D.L. (1990). Textbook use and teacher professionalism. In D.L. Elliot & Woodward, (Eds.), Textbooks and schooling in the United States (pp. 178-219). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  77. Yager, R.E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200610
  78. Yore, L.D., Craig, M.T., & Maguire, T.O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification and grades 4-8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35:1<27::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P
  79. Yore, L.D., & Shymansky, J.A. (1991). Reading in science: Developing an operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2, 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02962849

Cited by

  1. 지구과학 논문의 언어 특성 이해: 레지스터 분석 vol.31, pp.7, 2010, https://doi.org/10.5467/jkess.2010.31.7.785
  2. 중학교 과학 교과서 물리 단원에 수록된 과학 전문 용어 조사 vol.31, pp.8, 2011, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2011.31.8.1175
  3. Reading Strategies of Elementary Science Textbook vol.61, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.26589/jockle..61.201703.33
  4. 2009 개정 과학교육과정에 따른 초등학교 과학 교과서의 읽기자료 분석 vol.36, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.2.129