Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analyses on Elementary Students' Cognitive Domain in Free Science Inquiry Activities Applying a Brain-Based Evolutionary Approach

뇌 기반 진화적 접근법을 적용한 초등학교 학생의 과학 자유탐구에서 인지적 영역 분석

  • Received : 2014.11.10
  • Accepted : 2014.11.26
  • Published : 2014.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In National Curriculum of Science revised in 2007, the Free Inquiry was newly introduced to increase students' interest in science and to foster creativity by having students make their own question and find answer by themselves. The purpose of the study was to analyze characteristics, in cognitive domain, appeared in the processes of performing the Free Inquiry activities applying a brain-based evolutionary science teaching and learning principles. For this study, 106 fifth grade students participated, and they performed individually Free Inquiry activities. In order to characterize of the diversifying, estimating-evaluating-executing, and extending-applying activities in cognitive domain (C-DEF), the Free Inquiry diary constructed by the students, observations by a researcher, and interviews with the students were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The major results of this study were as follows: First, at C-D step, many students (71.5%) had difficulty in searching the meanings of their results and the contents of interpretations were at the level of simple description of their results. A few students (15.2%) derived interpretations based on causal relationships between specific variable and result. Also, the tendency that the numbers of interpretation about meaning of their results were increased as the scores of science attitude and achievement was appeared. Second, at C-E step, the students showed tendency of considering facts exactly explaining inquiry topic and being appliable to daily life rather than objectivity or accuracy of scientific knowledge. Third, at C-F step, there were three types of extension and application: simple repetition (8.2%), extension (64.0%), and upward application (17.6%) types. Based on these findings, implications for supporting appropriate interpretation, evaluation, and application of inquiry results are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040373
  2. Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  3. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S. & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475-499. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<475::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-O
  4. Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A. & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational construct that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Dai and R. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89-115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Hodson, D. (1998). Is this what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J Wellington(Ed.). Practical work in school science: Which way now? NY : Routledge. pp. 93-108.
  6. Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  7. Kim, C. J., Chae, D. H. & Lim, C. S. (1999). Introduction to science education. Seoul: BooksHill.
  8. Kim, D. Y. (2010). Development and application of the taxonomic framework of types of biological knowledge and learning in elementary school science. Unpublished master's thesis. Seoul National University of Education, Seoul, Korea.
  9. Kim, J. Y., Lim, C. S. & Baek, J. Y. (2014). Analyses on elementary students' behavioral domain in free science inquiry activities applying a brain-based evolutionary approach. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(3), 579-587. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.3.579
  10. Kim, K., Kim, S., Kim, N., Park, S., Kim, J., Park, H. & Jung, S. (2008). Characteristics of achievement trend in Korea's middle and high school students from international achievement assessment (TIMSS/PISA). KICE, Research Report RRE 2008-3-1.
  11. Krapp, A. (2002a). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to self-determination theory. In E. Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of selfdetermination research (pp. 405-427). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
  12. Krapp, A. (2002b). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development. Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 3830409.
  13. Lim, C. S. (2009). Development of a model of brainbased evolutionary scientific teaching for the learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(8), 990-1010.
  14. Lim, C. S. (2012). Development of an instructional model for brain-based evolutionary approach to creative problem solving in science. Biology Education (Korea), 40(4), 429-452. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.4.429
  15. Lim, C. S., Kim, J. Y. & Baek, J. Y. (2012). Analyses on elementary students' science attitude and topics of interest in free inquiry activities according to a brainbased evolutionary science teaching and learning model. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(4), 541-557.
  16. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69, 34-37.
  17. Ministry of Education and Science Technology (2007). Science curriculum. Ministry of Education and Science Technology Announcement 2007-79 (Supplement 9).
  18. Niaz, M. (1996). Reasoning strategies of students in solving chemistry problems as a function of developmental level, functional M-capacity, and disembedding ability. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 502-505.
  19. Peters, E. (2005). Reforming cookbook labs. Science Scope, 29(3), 16-21.
  20. Plotkin, H. (1994). Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge. Harvard University Press. Cambridge.
  21. Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.
  22. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Renninger, K. A. (1989). Individual differences in children's play interest. In L. T. Winegar (Ed.), Social interaction and the development of children's understanding (pp. 147-172). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  24. Renninger, K. A. (1990). Children's play interests, representation, and activity. In R. Fivush & K. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 127-165). New York: Cambridge Press.
  25. Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp. 373-404). New York: Academic Press.
  26. Renninger, K. A. & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers: The Math Forum as a resource for teacher professional development. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 60-95). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L. & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instructions, 12, 467-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00012-3
  28. Shin, H. H. & Kim, H. N. (2010). Analysis of elementary teachers' and students' views about difficulties on open science inquiry activities. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(3), 262-276.
  29. Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell's (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0022912.
  30. Tinajero, C. & Paramo, M. F. (1997). Field dependenceindependence and academic achievement: A re-examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01237.x
  31. Witkin, H. A. & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Field dependence and field independence. New York: International Universities Press.
  32. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R. & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001
  33. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  34. Yoon, H. G. & Pak, S. J. (2000). The change of middle school students' motivation for investigation through the extended science investigations. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(1), 137-154.
  35. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

  1. Analyses of Elementary School Students' Interests and Achievements in Science Outdoor Learning by a Brain-Based Evolutionary Approach vol.34, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2015.34.2.252
  2. Analyses of Elementary School Students’ Learning on Topic of ‘Living Organisms and Environment’ Applying Affective-Domain-Centered Brain-Based Evolutionary Approach vol.43, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2015.43.4.464
  3. '식물의 한살이' 단원에서 속성배추를 활용한 뇌기반 진화적 접근법이 초등학생의 흥미에 미치는 영향 vol.35, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2016.35.3.336