Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Development and Application of Student's Pre-question Framework for Analysisin Elementary Science Class

초등학교 과학수업에서 학생의 사전질문 분석틀 개발 및 적용

  • Received : 2018.03.05
  • Accepted : 2018.04.24
  • Published : 2018.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The student's pre-questions (pre-class questions related to the learning contents) not only provide the teacher a gauge of the interest and level of the student, but also provide a useful means of providing clues to proceed with the teaching-learning process. The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework for effectively analyzing students' pre-questions and to analyze students' pre-questions related to elementary science learning unit of the 2009 revised curriculum by applying this framework. The developed framework is composed of three major categories: knowledge type, extended type, and curious type, each of which is then subdivided into several sub-categories. Using the developed analysis framework, 914 pre-questions from the students presented in the $5^{th}$ and $6^{th}$ grades of elementary science in the 2009 revised curriculum were analyzed, and the types of questions distributed by grade. The percentage of questions by type was also different. Based on the results of this study, students' needs for learning can be grasped through the pre-questions analysis framework and reflected in the teaching-learning process, and student-centered learning contents and methods could be presented. It is expected to make a meaningful contribution to the analysis framework.

학생의 사전질문은 교사에게 학생의 관심사와 수준을 제공해줄 뿐만 아니라, 교육의 수요자인 학생의 관점을 반영하여 교수-학습을 진행할 수 있는 단서를 제공해주는 유용한 수단이다. 이 연구의 목적은 학생의 사전질문을 효과적으로 분석하기 위한 분석틀을 개발하고, 이 분석틀을 적용하여 2009 개정 교육과정의 초등과학 학습 단원과 관련된 학생의 사전질문을 분석하는 것이다. 개발된 분석틀은 지식형, 확장형, 호기심형 질문의 3개의 대범주로 구성되며, 각각의 범주에서 다시 몇 개의 하부 영역으로 세분된다. 개발된 분석틀을 이용하여 2009 개정 교육과정 초등과학 5, 6학년 학습 단원에서 제시한 학생사전질문 914개를 분석한 결과, 학년 및 학습 단원, 차시별로 분포하는 질문 유형이 다른 것으로 나타났으며, 유형별 질문의 비율에도 차이가 있었다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 사전질문 분석틀을 통해 학습에 대한 학생의 요구를 파악하고 이를 반영한 학생 중심의 교수-학습의 방향을 제시하였으며, 추후 연구에서도 분석틀이 유의미한 기여를 할 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bae, J., & Kim, J. (2008). Effects on generating and applicating of high-level questions in the elementary science instruction and learning. Biology Education, 36(4), 555-565. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2008.36.4.555
  2. Bae, S. (2017). The effect of assessing student-generated questions upon questioning performance(Doctoral thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  3. Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Posing problems for open investigations: what questions do pupils ask? Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(1), 269-287.
  4. Chin, C. & Brown. D. E. (2002). Student-generated question: a meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095249
  5. Cho, Y. (1988). Constructionism teaching-learning. Seoul: Science Education Publication Co.
  6. Choi, E. (2006). Effects on elementary school students'science learning characteristics with asking question in science classes(Master's thesis). Busan National University of Education, Busan.
  7. Choi, S. & Yeo, S. (2011). Analysis of elementary students' question types in their science class. The Journal of Education, 24(1), 137-146.
  8. Cuccio-Schirripa, S. & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 210-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<210::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-I
  9. Dalgarno, B. (1998). Choosing learner activities for specific learning outcomes: A tool for constructivist computer assisted design. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), Planning for Progress, Partnership and profile: Proceedings EdTech' 98. Perth: Australian Society for Educatioal Technology.
  10. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's minds. London: Fontana. Collins.
  11. Elstgeest, J. (1985). The right question at the right time. In W. Harlen (ed.) Primary Science: Taking the Plunge, London: Heinemann, 36-46.
  12. Finley, F. N. (1985). Variations in prior knowledge. Science Education. 69, pp. 697-706 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690511
  13. Fosnot, C. T., (1996). Constructivism. theory, perspective, and practice, Teachers College Press, Avenue, New York.
  14. Good, T. L., Slavings, R.L., Harel, K.H., & Emerson, H. (1987). Student passivity: a study of question asking in K-12 classrooms. Sociology of Education. 60, 181-199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112275
  15. Kang, I. (2003). Constructionism of our time. Seoul: Moonum Publication Co.
  16. Kang, I., & Choo, H. (2009). Re-conceptualization of the learner-centered education: the status quo of the in-service teachers. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 9(2), 1-34.
  17. Kim, M., & Kim, H. (2007). The effects of authentic open inquiry on cognitive reasoning through an analysis of types of student-generated questions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 930-943.
  18. Kim, S., Yeo, S., & Woo, K. (1999a). The effect of the teaching enhancing students questioning - a study (I) on students' questioning activity in science class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(3), 377-388.
  19. Kim, S., Yeo, S., & Woo, K. (1999b). Analysis of the patterns of students' questions - a study on students questioning activity in science classes (II). Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(4), 560-569.
  20. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031002338
  21. Korean Ministry of Education. (2015). 2009 revised elementary school science curriculum explanation 6-2. Korean Ministry of Education.
  22. Korean Ministry of Education. (2018). 2015 revised elementary school science curriculum explanation 3-1. Korean Ministry of Education.
  23. Lea, S. T., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students' attitudes to student centered learning: beyond' educational bulimia. Studies in Higher Education. 28(3), 321-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309293
  24. Lee, M. (2003). Factors affecting students' questioning and the types of questions in middle school science classes(Master's thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  25. Lee, Y., Lee, T., Lim, S., & Kim, Y. (2015). Analysis of elementary and middle school students' perceptions of frequency and type relating to question in science class context. The Journal of Science Education. 29(1). 59-79.
  26. Maskill & Pedrosa de Jesus. (1997). Pupils' questions. alternative frameworks and the design of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education. 19(7). 781-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190704
  27. Paris, C., & Combs, B. (2006). Lived meanings: what teachers mean when they say they are learner-centered. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice 12(5), 71-92.
  28. Sadker & Cooper. (1974). Increasing student high-order questions. Elementary English, 51, 502-507.
  29. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 177-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0903_1
  30. Scott P., Asoko H., Driver R. & Emberton J. (1994) Working from children's ideas: an analysis of constructivist teaching in the context of a chemistry topic. In: P. Fensham R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.) The content of science. (pp. 201-220). London: Falmer.
  31. White. R. T. & Gunstone (1992). Probing understanding, London: Falmer.
  32. Yang, I. H., Oh, C. H., & Cho, H. J. (2007). Development of the scientific inquiry process model based on scientists’ practical work. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 1-16.
  33. Yang, M. (1999). A critical understanding of the teacher's questioning : its characteristics. The Choong-Won Review of Humanities, 20(1), 61-79.