Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The Patterns of Analogy Change and the Characteristics of Discussions in Collaborative Activity of Self-Generated Analogy

협력적 비유 생성 활동에서 나타나는 비유의 변화 유형과 토론의 특징

  • Received : 2017.03.14
  • Accepted : 2017.05.16
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the processes of analogy change and the characteristics of discussions in collaborative activity of self-generated analogy. Twenty-four high school students in Seoul participated in this study. We implemented science instructions based on collaborative activity of self-generated analogy. We compared personal analogies, group analogies, and modified group analogies in order to analyze the processes of analogy change. We also analyzed the characteristics of group and classroom discussions in the science instructions. The analyses of the results indicated that the processes of analogy change were categorized into three patterns; adding shared attributes, recognizing unshared attributes, and revising mapping errors. They selected a group analogy from analogies of their group members by considering inclusiveness, originality, and familiarity. They perceived the activity of self-generated analogy as subjective and creative. Therefore, they felt little pressure of self-generated analogy and there were little conflicts in group discussions. On the other hand, various analogies were suggested in classroom discussions and the competitive atmosphere of classroom discussions led students to focus on unshared attributes. At the stage of modifying group analogies, they added unshared attributes as limitations of the group analogy and changed their group analogy not to have unshared attributes. There were no cases of generating a new analogy. Some suggestions to implement collaborative activity of self-generated analogy in science teaching effectively are discussed.

이 연구에서는 협력적 비유 생성 활동에서 나타나는 비유의 변화과정과 소집단 및 전체 학급 토론의 특징을 분석하였다. 서울특별시에 소재한 고등학교에 재학 중인 24명의 학생을 대상으로 협력적 비유 생성 활동을 적용한 수업을 진행하였다. 학생들이 생성한 개인 비유와 소집단 비유, 수정된 소집단 비유를 비교하여 비유의 변화과정을 분석하였으며, 비유 생성 활동을 위한 소집단 토론과 전체 학급 토론의 특징을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 비유의 변화 과정은 공유속성이 추가되는 경우, 비공유 속성을 인식하는 경우, 대응 오류가 수정되는 경우의 세 가지 변화 유형이 나타났다. 학생들은 여러 개인 비유 중 하나를 선택하는 방식으로 소집단 비유를 생성하였고, 이때 비유의 설명력, 독창성, 친숙도 등을 고려하는 것으로 나타났다. 학생들은 비유 생성 활동을 주관적이고 창의적인 활동이라고 인식하여 비유 생성 활동에 대한 정서적 부담감이 적었고 소집단 토론에서 갈등의 요소도 적었다. 전체 학급 토론에서는 다양한 비유가 제시되었으며 전체 학급 토론의 경쟁적인 분위기는 학생들이 비유가 갖는 비공유 속성에 주목하게 하였다. 소집단 비유 수정 단계에서 학생들은 비공유 속성을 비유가 갖는 제한점으로 추가하거나 비공유 속성을 갖지 않도록 비유를 변형하는 방식으로 비유를 수정하였고, 새로운 비유를 생성하는 경우는 거의 없었다. 이상의 결과를 바탕으로 협력적 비유 생성 활동을 적용한 수업을 효과적으로 진행하기 위한 방안을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Aragon, M. D. M., Oliva, J. M., & Navarrete, A. (2014). Contributions of learning through analogies to the construction of secondary education pupils’ verbal discourse about chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1960-1984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.887237
  2. Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2011). Investigating and theorizing discourse during analogy writing in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 771-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20428
  3. Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211580
  4. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  5. BouJaoude, S., & Tamim, R. (2008). Middle school students' perceptions of the instructional value of analogies, summaries and answering questions in life science. Science Educator, 17(1), 72-78.
  6. Byun C. S., & Kim, H. (2010). The effects of student-centered instruction using analogy for middle school students' learning of the photosynthesis concept. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 304-322.
  7. Choi, K. (2004). The effects of students' self-created analogies on their understanding of electricity-related concepts. Sae Mulli (The Korean Physical Society), 48(5), 401-410.
  8. Choi, S. Y., Lee, E. J., & Kang, H. K. (2006). The effects of the visual-analogical learning on student creativity and science achievement in elementary school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(2), 167-176.
  9. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467-563. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2404_3
  10. Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000276712
  11. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320306
  12. Do, S. L. (2005). Emotion and classroom talk: Toward a model of affect in students’ experiences of classroom discussion. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(1), 17-39.
  13. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
  14. Enghag, M., Gustafsson, P., & Jonsson, G. (2009). Talking physics during small-group work with context-rich problems-analysed from an ownership perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9125-z
  15. Enghag, M., & Niedderer, H. (2008). Two dimensions of student ownership of learning during small-group work in physics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(4), 629-653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9075-x
  16. Fensham, P. (1975). Concept formation. In D. J. Daniels (Ed.), New movements in the study and teaching of chemistry (pp. 199-217). London: Temple Smith.
  17. Fogwill, S. (2010). Student co-generated analogies and their influence on the development of science understanding. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  18. Glynn, S. M. (1989). The teaching with analogies model. In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Children's comprehension of text: Research into practice (pp. 185-204). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  19. Haglund, J. (2013). Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 35-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.801119
  20. Haglund, J., & Jeppsson, F. (2012). Using self-generated analogies in teaching of thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 898-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21025
  21. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884
  22. Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (1997). Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 869-885. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190801
  23. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2006). The role of analog models in the understanding of the nature of models in chemistry. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 119-131). Dordrecht: Springer.
  24. Kim, D. (2008). The effects of applying instruction using high school students’ self-generated analogies for concepts in genetics. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(5), 424-437.
  25. Kim, K., Choi, E., Cha, J., & Noh, T. (2006). The effect of an instruction using generating analogy on students’ conceptual understanding in middle school science concept learning. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(4), 338-345. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.4.338
  26. Kim, M., Kwon, H., Kim, Y., & Noh, T. (2017). An investigation of the characteristics of analogies generated by high school students on ionic bonding: A comparison of characteristics of analogies depending on their cognitive variables. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0039
  27. Kim, Y., & Noh, T. (2015). An analysis of verbal interaction and analogy-generating pattern of science-gifted students in learning using analogy-generating strategy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 1063-1076. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.1063
  28. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R
  29. Lin, T. J., Anderson, R. C., Hummel, J. E., Jadallah, M., Miller, B. W., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., ... Dong, T. (2012). Children's use of analogy during collaborative reasoning. Child Development, 83(4), 1429-1443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01784.x
  30. May, D. B., Hammer, D., & Roy, P. (2006). Children's analogical reasoning in a third-grade science discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316-330. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20116
  31. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2012). Students' pre- and post-teaching analogical reasoning when they draw their analogies. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 429-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.593202
  32. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2013). Science teachers' analogical reasoning. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1689-1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9328-8
  33. Noh, T., & Kwon, H. (1999). A study on science teachers' practices and perceptions of using analogies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(4), 665-673.
  34. Noh, T., Yang, C., & Kang, H. (2009). Characteristics of student-generated analogies, mapping understanding, and mapping errors on saturated solution of scientifically-gifted and general elementary students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(3), 292-303.
  35. Park, H., Kim, H., Jang, S., Shim, Y., Kim, C.-J., Kim, H.-B., ... Park, K.-M. (2014). Characteristics of social interaction in scientific modeling instruction on combustion in middle school. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 58(4), 393-405. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2014.58.4.393
  36. Ryu, S., Chang, H., & Choi, K. (2008). The effects of self-generated analogies on the concept of photoelectric effect in Modern Physics unit of high school physics course. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 12(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.1.83
  37. Shim, Y., Kim, C.-J., Choe, S.-U., Kim, H.-B., Yoo, J., Park, H., ... Jang, S. (2015). Exploring small group features of the social-construction process of scientific model in a combustion class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0217
  38. Spier-Dance, L., Mayer-Smith, J., Dance, N., & Khan, S. (2005). The role of student-generated analogies in promoting conceptual understanding for undergraduate chemistry students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500266401
  39. Spiro, R. J., Feltovitch, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Anderson, D. K. (1989). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: Antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 498-531). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers' analogical explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310304
  41. Wong, E. D. (1993a). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300405
  42. Wong, E. D. (1993b). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-1272. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301008
  43. Yang, C., Kim, S., Jo, M., & Noh, T. (2016). The characteristics of group and classroom discussions in the scientific modeling of the particulate model of matter. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 361-369. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0361
  44. Yerrick, R. K., Doster, E., Nugent, J. S., Parke, H. M., & Crawley, F. E. (2003). Social interaction and the use of analogy: An analysis of preservice teachers’ talk during physics inquiry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10084
  45. Yoon, J.-A., & Kang, H. (2011). The effects of analogy-generating in small group on saturated solution in elementary science-gifted education. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 55(3), 509-518. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2011.55.3.509
  46. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 41-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323662

Cited by

  1. 학생 중심 비유를 사용한 예비과학교사의 수업에서 나타나는 특징 분석 vol.64, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.2.99