Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The Characteristics of Instrumental Genesis Appearing in the Processes of High School Students' School Scientific Inquiries

고등학생의 학교 과학 탐구 활동에서 나타나는 도구발생의 특징

  • Received : 2017.09.18
  • Accepted : 2017.12.08
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we explored the characteristics of instrumental genesis in high school students' scientific inquiries. Twenty-three 10th to 11th graders in a science research club participated in this study. The students in 6 groups autonomously planned and performed their own scientific inquiries for one semester. Their activities were videotaped and recorded. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Material request papers and group worksheets were also collected for analysis. The results of the study suggested that students' practices were categorized as instrument genesis. When instrument genesis did not occur, the cases at the beginning of and during the practice were described respectively. Instrumental genesis was found to appear in three categories: instrumentation; instrumentation and instrumentalization; and instrumentalization. The characteristics and details of case represented in each category were described and discussed related to affordance as the results of the study. On the bases of the results, the implications for the reconsideration of the instruments in school science inquiries are discussed.

이 연구에서는 고등학생의 학교 과학 탐구에서 나타나는 도구발생의 특징을 탐색하였다. 연구 대상은 고등학교의 과학 동아리 활동에 참여한 1, 2학년 학생 23명으로, 학생들은 6개 조로 나뉘어 한 학기동안 과학 탐구를 자율적으로 계획하고 수행하였다. 학생들의 탐구 활동을 녹음 및 녹화하며 관찰하였고, 반구조화된 심층 면담을 실시하였다. 준비물 요청서와 조별 활동지도 수집하여 분석에 활용하였다. 연구 결과는 학생들의 활동을 도구발생의 여부에 따라 범주화하여 제시하였다. 구체적으로 도구발생이 중단된 경우에는 활동 초기에 도구발생이 중단된 사례, 활동 과정에서 도구발생이 중단된 사례를 각각 기술하였다. 또한 도구발생이 일어난 경우에는 도구 조정화, 도구 조정화 및 전용화, 도구 전용화 범주로 세분하고 각 범주에 해당하는 대표 사례를 기술하였다. 도구발생의 여부와 구체적인 특징은 탐구 맥락에서 조명되었고 도구의 어포던스와 연관하여 해석되었다. 연구 결과를 바탕으로 학생들의 과학 활동에서 도구의 위치를 재고하고 연구에의 시사점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, K., Frappier, M., Neswald, E., & Trim, H. (2013). Reading instruments: Objects, texts and museums. Science & Education, 22(5), 1167-1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9391-y
  2. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245-274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022103903080
  3. Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge: A philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  4. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10086
  5. Bud, R., & Warner, D. (1998). Instruments of science. An historical encyclopedia. London and New York: Smithsonian Institution.
  6. Chamizo, J. A. (2014). The role of instruments in three chemical' revolutions. Science & Education, 23(4), 955-982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9678-x
  7. 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
  8. Choi, C. I., & Lee, S.-K. (2016). Reconsidering the meanings of experiments and instruments based on the analysis of chemistry experiments in textbooks. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(4), 267-275. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2016.60.4.267
  9. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  10. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
  11. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
  12. Han, S. H., & Chang, K. Y. (2009). Instrumental genesis of Computer Algebra System(CAS) in mathematical problem solving among high school students. School Mathematics, 11(3), 527-546.
  13. Han, Y.-H. (2012). Development of classroom inquiry model to improve scientific communication ability. (Doctoral dissertation). Korea National University of Education, Cheongju.
  14. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655-675. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<655::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-E
  15. Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behavior & Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001592587
  16. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., & Day, R. S. (2002). "It's harder than we thought it would be": A comparative case study of expert-novice experimentation. Science Education, 86(2), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10002
  17. Jeong, J., Lee, K., & Kim, J. (2006). Analysis of inquiry teaching levels of beginning science teachers in middle school science laboratories. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(4), 364-373.
  18. Jhun, Y. S., & Jeon, M. J. (2010). The difficulty that is caused open inquiry instruction. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 20(1), 105-115.
  19. Jung, W.-K., Lee, J.-K., & Oh, S. W. (2011). Investigation on the difficulties during middle school students' finding inquiry topics on open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1199-1213.
  20. Kampourakis, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2003). A study of the effect of a practical activity on problem solving in chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 319-333. https://doi.org/10.1039/B2RP90047E
  21. Kang, Y. R., & Cho, C. S. (2015). An activity theoretical analysis on the instrumental orchestration of the teacher: Focusing on the calculator-based classroom activities of gifted elementary math students. Journal of Korea Society Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(2), 273-287.
  22. Kapon, S. (2016). Doing research in school: Physics inquiry in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1172-1197. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21325
  23. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2003). Middle school students’ ideas about the purposes of laboratory work. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(3), 254-264.
  24. Kim, S.-J. (2010). Re-understanding of technoscience and nature through actor-network theory. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society, 45(4), 461-477.
  25. Kim, Y., & Yang, I.-H. (2005). The factor analysis of affecting elementary students’ science attitude change. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 24(3), 292-300.
  26. Lee, J. H., Nam, J. H., & Moon, S. B. (2003). The effects of a performance assessment based on the experimental practice on student’s science achievement and affective domain in the middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(1), 66-74.
  27. Lee, S. (2000). The nature and structure of experimentation: Epistemic approach founded on theory-network. (Doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  28. Lee, S. (2004). Philosophical understanding of doing experience. Korea: Seokwangsa.
  29. Lee, S. (2009). Phenomena and instruments. Korea: Hanul academy.
  30. Lee, S. (2015). Materiality of science technologized. Journal of the Society of Philosophical Studies, 111, 123-148.
  31. Lee, S.-K., Han, J., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2015). Characteristics of student inquiry found in project-based science practices: Focusing on theory-evidence-method coordinations and skills in using tools. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 599-608. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0599
  32. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Proceedings of Graphics Interface. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, Toronto, 2000, 179-186.
  33. Metz, K. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2202_3
  34. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
  35. Oh, P. S. (2017). An interpretation of modeling-based elementary science lessons from a perspective of distributed cognition. Elementary Science Education, 36(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.1.016
  36. Park, H. (2012). A development of affordances design strategy for improvement of pedagogical usability on e-learning contents user interfaces. (Doctoral dissertation). Chung-Ang University, Seoul.
  37. Park, J. (2000). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis: Focused on the definition and the characteristics of scientific hypothesis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4), 667-679.
  38. Park, Y.-S. (2006). Theoretical study on the opportunity of scientific argumentation for implementing authentic scientific inquiry. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(4), 401-415.
  39. Perry, P. (1995). Getting started in science fairs: From planning to judging. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  40. Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., Phelps, S., Kyle, T., & Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 467-484. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20140
  41. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  42. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89(5), 803-821. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20071
  43. 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.
  44. Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in western Australia: Opennes to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02462906
  45. Tomkins, S. P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12-year-old pupils undertaking science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791-813. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690119322
  46. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-004-3468-5
  47. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172796
  48. Wellington, J. J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3-15). New York: Routledge.
  49. Yang, I.-H., Jeong, J.-W., Kim, Y.-S., Kim, M.-K., & Cho, H.-J. (2006). Analyses of the aims of laboratory activity, interaction, and inquiry process within laboratory instruction in secondary school science. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(5), 509-520.
  50. Yoo, J., & Kim, J. (2012). Middle school students’ construction of physics inquiry problems and variables isolation and clarification during small group open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.903