한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제34권2호
  • /
  • Pages.164-182
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초등 과학영재학생들의 '살아있는 것'에 대한 존재론적 이해 분석

An Analysis of Science-gifted Elementary School Students' Ontological Understanding of 'Living Things'

  • 투고 : 2015.01.27
  • 심사 : 2015.03.11
  • 발행 : 2015.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study aims to analyze science-gifted elementary students' understanding of 'Living Things' with ontological domains. As research subjects, this study selected 80 science-gifted students who belonged to Education Institute for Science-gifted Elementary Students at University of Education, and this study came to the following conclusions. Firstly, the gifted students thought of animals as living things most, out of which humans accounted for the highest rate. They were also found to evaluate the importance of living things depending on benefits and harms to humans. Secondly, when judging 4 domains of living things, animals, plants, static inanimate objects and dynamic inanimate objects, the gifted students did not have difficulty judging animals, plants and static inanimate objects, but 4 of them judged the moon, a dynamic inanimate object, as a living thing. In the aspect of reaction time, they spent more time judging plants than animals. This study classified their standards of judgement on living things into ontological categories. As a result, it was found that 31 and 33 out of them had standards of judgement corresponding to the category of matter and the category of process respectively, and only 16 of them had standards of judgement corresponding to the category of mental states. Thirdly, how to make a waterwheel and images of euglena and paramecium were shown to 10 of the gifted students who suggested simple movements as characteristics of living things. As a result, 7 of them changed their standards of judgement from the category of matter to the category of process, while 3 of them changed from the category of matter to the category of mental states.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ahn, J., Chun, M., Park, K. & Jeon, S. (2010). The analysis of the science gifted's characteristics present in linguistic literation in the animal development inquiry activity program based on creative problem solving (CPS) model. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 20(1), 107-130.
  2. Allen, M. (2010). Misconceptions in primary science. Open University Press.
  3. Ashworth, S., Boyes, E., Paton, R. & Stanisstreet, M. (1995). Conservation of endangered species: What do children think?. Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 14(3), 229-244.
  4. Babai, R., Sekal, R. & Stavy, R. (2010). Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9174-2
  5. Brebner. J. T. & Welford, A. T. (1980) Introduction: an historical background sketch. In: Welford AT (ed) Reaction times. Academic Press, New York.
  6. Brooker, R. J., Widmaier, E. P., Graham, L. E. & Stiling, P. D. (2008). Biology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  7. Campbell, N. A. & Reece, J. (2008). Biology, 8th Ed. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
  8. Caravita, S. & Falchetti, E. (2005). Are bones alive?. Journal of Biological Education, 39(4), 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655990
  9. Carey, S. (1985) Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & DeLeeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change
  11. for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27-43. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
  12. Cho, E. & Paik, S. (2006). A comparison analysis of intellectual characteristics between science-gifted education students and general students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(3), 307-316.
  13. Chung, W. & Cha, H. (1992). How do Korean students conceptualize living things and nonliving things?. Biology Education, 20(2), 147-151.
  14. Duit, R. (2007). Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education: a bibliography, full version March 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
  15. Hage, R. & Rauckiene, A. (2004). Ecocentric worldview paradigm: The reconstruction of consciousness. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(1), 50-58.
  16. Hatano, G., Siegler, R., Richards, D., Inagaki, K., Stavy, R. & Wax, N. (1993) The development of biological knowledge: a multi-national study. Cognitive. Development, 8(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(93)90004-O
  17. Hee, K., Chung, W. & Jeong, J. (1995). How do Korean young children conceptualize living things and nonliving things?. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 15(1), 126-131.
  18. Hellden, G. F. & Solomon, J. (2004). The persistence of personal and social themes in context: long and shortterm studies of students' scientific ideas. Science Education, 88(1), 885-900. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20003
  19. Hewson, P. W. (1996). Teaching for conceptual change. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp.131-140). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
  20. Jeong, K. (2009). Ontological categorizing of high school students about rocks and crust, plate tectonics. Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2009.33.1.56
  21. Johnston, A. T. & Southerland, S. A. (2000). A reconsideration of science misconceptions using ontological categories. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching April, 2000, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  22. Kang, M. (2008). Early childhood teachers' grounded conceptions on identification between biological and nonbiological objects. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 153-170.
  23. Kellert, S. R. (1993). Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00908.x
  24. Kim, K. & Park, M. (2009). Changes in young children's understanding of 'living things' by picture activity. Korean Journal of Children's Media, 8(2), 65-98.
  25. Kim, K., Lee, S., Han, S. & Noh, T. (2008). An investigation the elementary school students' perceptions of the scientific and technological prefessions by using the 'drawing scientific and technological workplaces'. Elementary Science Education, 27(3), 307-317.
  26. Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls' preferences for animals or plants: a simple “head-tohead” comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 95-99.
  27. Kurdziel, J. P. & Libarkin, J. C. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: Students' ideas about the nature of science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-50.3.322
  28. Kwon, J. (2007). Earth science pre-service teachers' earth concept based on The ontological categories. Unpublished master's thesis, Korea National University of Education.
  29. Lee, H. (2011). An analysis on the behavioral characteristics of the scientifically gifted students. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 32(3), 294-305. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2011.32.3.294
  30. Lindermann-Matthies, P. (2002). The influence of an educational program on children's perception of biodiversity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 33(2), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960209600805
  31. Mickle, J. E. & Aune, P. M. (2008). Development of a laboratory course in nonmajors general biology for distance education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(1), 35-39.
  32. Mickle, J. E. & Aune, P. M. (2011). A simple, inexpensive, dynamic, & hands-on exercise for prompting discussion of the characteristics of living things. American Biology Teacher, 73(3), 164-166. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2011.73.3.8
  33. Park, M., Kim, Y. & Oh, K. (2012). Effects of the diagram-drawing learning method on the science-related attitudes of the middle school students. Teacher Education Research, 51(2), 390-402. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.51.3.201212.390
  34. Piaget, J. (1979). The child's conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
  35. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  36. Raven, P. H., Johnson, G. B., Losos, J. B. & Singer, S. R. (2005). Biology, 7th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  37. Russell, P. J., Wolfe, S. L., Hertz, P. E., Starr, C. & McMillan, B. (2008). Biology: The dynamic science. Belmont, CA: Thompson, Brooks/Cole.
  38. Ryu, J. (2010). The effects of screen layout of PDA and yipes of Task on response time and users' preference. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 16(1), 71-94.
  39. Shepardson, D. P. (2005). Student ideas: What is an environment? Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 49-58.
  40. Siegal, G. & Peterson, C. C. (1999). Becoming mindful of biology and health: An introduction. In M. Siegal & C. Peterson (Eds.), Children's understanding of biology and health (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Skamp, K. (2012). Teaching primary science constructively. Cengage Learning.
  42. Slaughter, V., Jaakkola, R. & Carey, S. (1999). Constructing a coherent theory: Children's biological understanding of life and death. In M. Siegal & C. Peterson (Eds.), Children's understanding of biology and health (pp. 71-96). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H. & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373-400. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1303_2
  44. Tamir, P., Gal-Chappin, R. & Nussnovitz, R. (1981) How do intermediate and junior high school students conceptualize living and nonliving?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(1), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180307
  45. Venville, G. (2004). Young children learning about living things: Case study of conceptual change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449-480. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20011
  46. Venville, G. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1031-1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199811)35:9<1031::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-E
  47. Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Plants or animals-which do junior high school students prefer to study?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(5), 415-426. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230504
  48. Wandersee, J. H. & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 84-86.
  49. Waxman, S. (2005). Why is the concept "living thing" so elusive? Concepts, languages, and the development of folk biology. In: Ahn, W., Goldstone, R. L., Love, B. C., Markman, A. B., Wolff. P. (eds), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 49-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  50. Yen, C.-F., Yao, T. W. & Mintzes, J. J. (2007). Taiwanese students' alternative conceptions of animal biodiversity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 535-553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601073418
  51. Yorek, N., Sahin, M. & Aydin, H. (2009). Are animals 'More Alive' than plants? Animistic-anthropocentric construction of life concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287