한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제31권4호
  • /
  • Pages.539-556
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

원자모형에 기초한 예비과학교사들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식

Recognition of the Nature of Science by Preservice Science Teachers on the Basis of the Atomic Model

  • 투고 : 2011.01.05
  • 심사 : 2011.05.19
  • 발행 : 2011.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 원자모형 사례를 이용한 과학의 본성 검사지를 사용하여 중등예비 과학교사들이 가지고 있는 과학의 본성에 대한 인식이 '원자모형'이라는 과학지식과 관련되어 어떻게 드러나는지를 살펴보고, 기존의 선행연구와 비교해 보았다. '모형에 관한 인식', '과학지식의 잠정성', '과학에서의 주관성', '추론과 상상력의 사용', '보편적인 과학적 방법에 대한 잘못된 신념', '과학과 예술의 비교'라는 6 관점을 조사하였다. 연구결과, 예비과학교사들은 과학지식(구름원자모형)의 잠정성, 과학에서의 주관성(톰슨과 러더퍼드의 알파입자 산란실험에 대한 해석)에 대해 비교적 잘 이해하고 있는 것으로 나타난 반면, 보편적인 과학적 방법과 관련하여 가장 바람직하지 못한 인식을 드러냈다. 모형(원자모형)에 관한 인식과 과학(보어의 원자모형)과 예술(피카소의 작품)을 비교하는 영역에서는 존재론적 관점과 구성주의적 관점이 혼재되어 나타났으며, 과학연구에서 상상력의 사용은 필수적인 동시에 최대한 자제되어야 한다는 다소 모순된 생각을 보여줬다. '모형'이나 '과학이론'과 같은 일반적인 용어를 사용하여 조사된 기존의 선행연구들을 본 연구결과와 비교한 결과, 과학지식의 잠정성에 대해 보다 높은 긍정을 나타내게 했으며, 과학자의 연구방법에 대해 구체적인 과학자를 제시하였을 때, 응답자들은 좀 더 바람직한 인식을 드러내는 경향을 보였다.

The purpose of this study was to examine preservice secondary science teachers' understanding of the nature of science, by using nature of science (NOS) questionnaire on the basis of atomic model, and compare this to pre-studies. 'Understanding of nature of scientific model,' 'Tentativeness of scientific knowledge,' 'Subjectivity in science,' 'Use of inference and imagination,' 'Myths of the scientific method,' and 'Comparison between science and art.' were examined. Preservice teachers showed great comprehension of the tentativeness of scientific knowledge (the orbital model) and the subjectivity in science (the different interpretation about the experiment of particle scattering), but displayed the lowest comprehension of the scientific method. For understanding of nature of scientific model (the atomic model) and the comparison between science (Bohr's atomic model) and art (Picasso's work), preservice teachers brought out a combination of ontological and constructivist perspective and showed the contradictory thought about imagination in science research. In the result of comparison to pre-studies using the NOS instruments contains general terms, represented high levels of agreement about the tentativeness of scientific knowledge by using concrete examples of 'atomic model'. When concrete scientists such as Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr were presented, respondents revealed more informed views about the scientists' research method.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 강순민, 임재항, 김경대 (2006). 과학영재들의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(6), 743-752.
  2. 교육인적자원부 (2007). 과학과 교육과정. 서울: 교육부.
  3. 김문환 (1995). 과학과 예술의 비교 ; 창조적 과정을 중심으로. 과학사상, 13, 7-23.
  4. 김선영 (2010). 예비 과학교사의 과학의 본성에 대한 인식 조사: 생물과 비생물 교사와의 비교. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(2), 206-217.
  5. 김영수, 곽대오, 성민웅 (2002). 과학의 본성에 대한 고등학생들의 견해. 한국생물교육학회지, 30(1), 1-12.
  6. 백성혜 (2006). 과학 교과서에 제시된 아보가드로 가설과 법칙에 관한 설명의 문제점. 과학 철학, 9(2), 159-184.
  7. 소원주, 김범기, 우종옥 (1998). 중등학교 학생들의 과학의 본성 개념을 측정하기 위한 도구 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 18(2), 127-136.
  8. 오필석 (2009). 과학과 과학 교육에서 사용되는 모델에 관한 예비 초등 교사들의 인식. 초등과학교육, 28(4), 450-466.
  9. 이금희, 박현주 (2005). 과학적 소양의 관점에서 본 대학생들의 과학의 본성에 대한 이해. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(3), 390-399.
  10. 임재항, 강순민, 공영태, 최병순, 남정희 (2004). STS에 대한 고등학생들의 견해에 관한 평가도구 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1143-1157.
  11. 조정일, 주동기 (1996). 과학교사들의 과학의 본성에 관한 관점 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 16(2), 200-209.
  12. 차정호, 김영희, 노태희 (2004). 과학적 모델에 대한 중 고등학생들의 견해. 대한화학회, 48(6), 638-644.
  13. 홍성욱 (2005). 과학과 예술: 그 수렴과 접점을 위한 시론. 과학기술학연구, 5(1), 1-30.의 본성에 대한 이해의 발달. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 221-239.
  14. 홍미선 (2009). 예비 지구과학 교사들의 과학 본성에 대한 학년에 따른 견해. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문.
  15. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The NOS and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
  16. Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., & Ryan, A. G. (1987). High-school graduates' beliefs about science-technology-society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71, 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710203
  17. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El- Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers'conceptions of NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2
  18. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. An, Y. et. al (2010). Development of views on science questionnaire on the basis of experienced scientific knowledge atomic model, submitted in Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  21. Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Champaign, IL : University of Illinois Press.
  22. Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers' gain in understanding the NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660120303
  23. Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: Case studies of teachers' personal theories. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 437-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110408
  24. Bryan, L. A., Seung, E. & 남정희 (2009). Korean pre-service teachers' understanding about the nature of science(NOS). 한국과학교육학회지, 29(3), 314-328.
  25. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students'understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11 (Special issue), 514-529.
  26. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on NOS and attitudes toward teaching science (VOSE). Science Education, 90, 803-819. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20147
  27. Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660010116
  28. Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180502
  29. Engler, G. (1990). Aesthetics in science and in art. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 30, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/30.1.24
  30. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers' knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750111
  31. Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman physics students' views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 248-264. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20219
  32. Justi, R. S. & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers' views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369-1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070324
  33. Kang, S. J., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. H. (2005). Examing Students' views on the NOS results from korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314-334. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20053
  34. Lantz, O. & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers'functional paradigms. Science Education, 71, 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710114
  35. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  36. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of NOS questionnaire toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  37. Lederman, N. G., Farber, P. L., Abd-El- Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (1998). The myth of the scientific method and slippery debates in the classroom: A response to McCreary. The Oregon Science Teacher, 39(4), 24-27.
  38. Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740207
  39. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290407
  40. Miller, A. I. (1995). Aesthetic, representation and creativity in art and science. Leonardo, 28, 185-192. https://doi.org/10.2307/1576073
  41. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  42. Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago : The University of Chicago press.
  43. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scot, L. (1994). Pupils'images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 361-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069940160309
  44. Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils' understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5<493::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-6
  45. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485
  46. Van Driel, J. F.& Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers'knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141-1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290110
  47. Welch, W. W., & Pella, M. O. (1967-1968). The development of an instrument for inventorying knowledge of the processes of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 64.
  48. Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the NOS and its purpose in society. Science Education, 38, 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730380209

피인용 문헌

  1. Development of Views on Science Questionnaire on the Basis of Experienced Scientific Knowledge, Atomic Model vol.32, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.3.428
  2. Nature of Science (NOS) Presentation in the Introductory Chapters of Korean High School Life ScienceⅠ Textbooks Using a Qualitative Content Analysis vol.17, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.1.173
  3. A Case Study of Beginning Elementary School Teachers’View Changes on the Nature of Science and Science Education through Teacher Education of La main à la pâte Program vol.52, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.52.2.201308.215
  4. The characteristics of preservice teachers' NOS teaching practices in the stimulated teaching vol.43, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2015.43.3.228
  5. 언어 네트워크 분석을 이용한 과학의 본성에 관한 국내연구 동향 vol.9, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2016.9.1.65
  6. Investigation on the Arts High School Students’ Understanding on the Nature of Scientific Models vol.22, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2018.22.6.426