Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Preservice Chemistry Teachers' Modelling Ability and Perceptions in Science Writing for Audiences of General Chemistry Experiment Using Argument-based Modeling Strategy

논의-기반 모델링 전략을 이용한 일반화학실험에서 글쓰기 대상에 따른 예비화학교사들의 모델링 능력 및 모델링에 대한 인식 분석

  • Cho, Hye Sook (Department of Chemistry Education, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, HanYoung (Department of Chemistry Education, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kang, Eugene (Center for Science Teaching and Learning, Pusan National University) ;
  • Nam, Jeonghee (Department of Chemistry Education, Pusan National University)
  • 조혜숙 (부산대학교 화학교육과) ;
  • 김한영 (부산대학교 화학교육과) ;
  • 강유진 (부산대학교 과학교수학습센터) ;
  • 남정희 (부산대학교 화학교육과)
  • Received : 2019.05.21
  • Accepted : 2019.08.23
  • Published : 2019.12.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of science writing for different audiences on preservice chemistry teachers' chemistry concept understanding and modeling ability in general chemistry experiment activities using Argument-based Modeling (AbM) strategy. And we also examined preservice chemistry teachers' perceptions of modeling in different audience groups. The participants of the study were 18 university students in the first grade of preservice chemistry teachers taking a general chemistry experiment course. They completed eleven topics of general chemistry experiment using argument-based modeling strategy. The understanding of chemistry concept was compared with the effect size of pre- and post-chemistry concept test scores. To find out modeling ability, we analyzed level of model by each preservice chemistry teacher. Analytical framework for the modeling ability was composed of three elements, explanation, representation, and communication. The questionnaire was conducted to check up on preservice chemistry teacher's recognition of modeling. The result of analyzing the effect of modeling for different audience on the understanding of chemistry concept and modeling ability, the preservice chemistry teachers' were found to be more effective when the level of audience was low. There was no difference in the recognition of modeling between the groups for audience. However, we could confirm that the responses of preservice chemistry teachers are changed in concrete when they have an experience in succession on modeling.

이 연구는 논의-기반 모델링 전략을 적용한 일반화학실험 수업에서 글쓰기 대상에 따른 과학 글쓰기가 예비 화학교사들의 모델링 능력 및 모델링에 대한 인식에 미치는 영향을 알아보는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 또한 이와 함께 예비 화학교사들의 화학개념 이해에 미치는 영향도 알아보았다. 이를 위해서 사범대학 화학교육과에 재학 중인 예비 화학교사 1학년 18명을 대상으로 11개 주제의 논의-기반 모델링 전략을 적용한 일반화학실험 수업을 진행하였다. 화학개념 이해는 사전과 사후의 화학개념 이해 검사 점수에 대한 효과크기를 비교하였다. 모델링 능력은 예비 화학교사들이 제시하는 모델을 설명, 표상화, 의사소통의 3가지 영역으로 구분하여 집단의 효과크기를 분석하였으며, 모델링에 대한 인식을 알아보기 위해서 설문조사를 실시하였다. 분석결과, 예비 화학교사의 화학개념 이해와 모델링 능력은 글쓰기 대상인 독자의 수준이 낮은 경우, 효과가 더 큰 것으로 나타났으며 글쓰기 대상에 따른 집단에서 모델링에 대한 인식은 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 모델링 과정을 경험함에 따라 예비 화학교사들의 응답이 더 구체적으로 변해가는 것을 확인할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. 2015 Revised national curriculum. 2015; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Notice No. 2015-74.
  2. Brown, J. S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Educational Researcher 1989, 18, 32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
  3. Lee, S. Y. Korean Language Education Research 1994, 4, 67.
  4. Vygotsky, L. S. Language and Thought; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Ontario, Canada. 1962.
  5. Gilbert, S. W.; Ireton, S. W. Understanding Models in Earth & Space Science. NSTA press: U.S.A. 2003.
  6. Redish, E. F. American Journal of Physics 1994, 62, 796. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17461
  7. Chamizo, J. A. Science & Education 2013, 22, 1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9407-7
  8. Boulter, C. J.; Buckley, B. C. Constructing a Typology of Models for Science Education. In Developing models in science education: Springer, Dordrecht. 2000; pp 41-57.
  9. Lehrer, R.; Schauble, L. Scientific Thinking and Science Literacy. Handbook of child psychology 2006, 4, 153.
  10. Halloun, I. A. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1996, 33, 1019. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199611)33:9<1019::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-I
  11. Oh, P. S.; Oh, S. J. International Journal of Science Education 2011, 33, 1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191
  12. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. F. International Journal of Science Education 2000, 22, 1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884
  13. Justi, R. S.; Gilbert, J. K. International Journal of Science Education 2002, 24, 1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210163198
  14. Windschitl, M. Science Education 2003, 87, 112. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10044
  15. Windschitl, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2004, 41, 481. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20010
  16. Cho, H. S.; Nam, J.; Oh, P. S. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education 2017, 37, 239.
  17. Talanquer, V.; Tomanek, D.; Novodvorsky, I. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2013, 50, 189. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21074
  18. Schwarz, C. V.; Reiser, B. J.; Davis, E. A.; Kenyon, L.; Acher, A.; Fortus, D.; Krajcik, J. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2009, 46, 632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  19. Passmore, C. M.; Svoboda, J. International Journal of Science Education 2012, 34, 1535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577842
  20. Romberg, T. A.; Carpenter, T. P.; Kwako, J. Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters: Routledge: London, U. K., 2005; p3-26.
  21. Bybee, R. W. Science Teacher 2011, 78, 34.
  22. Cho, H. S.; Nam, J. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education 2014, 4, 583. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0583
  23. Kim, M. C. Trends in Research Studies on Scientific Writing. Master dissertation, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea, 2015.
  24. Prain, V.; Hand, B. Teaching and Teacher Education 2016, 12, 609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00003-0
  25. Midgette, E.; Haria, P.; MacArthur, C. Reading and Writing 2008, 21, 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9067-9
  26. Chen, Y.; Garcia, E. K.; Gupta, M. R.; Rahimi, A.; Cazzanti, L. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2009, 10, 747.
  27. Porter, J. E. Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, U.S.A., 1992.
  28. McDermott, M.; Kuhn, M. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association 2012, 58, 53.
  29. Gunel, M.; Hand, B.; McDermott, M. A. Learning and Instruction 2009, 19, 354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001
  30. Keys, C. W.; Hand, B.; Prain, V.; Collins, S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1999, 36, 1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  31. Nam, J.; Kwak, K. H.; Jang K. H.; Hand, B. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education 2008, 28, 922.
  32. Heo, E. A. The Impact of General Chemistry Laboratory using Reading frame-based Science Writing Heuristic Approach on College Students' Reflective Thinking. Doctoral dissertation, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea, 2011.
  33. Lee, D. W. Investigation about the cognitive process of student's modeling at modeling emphasized argument-based general chemistry experiment. Doctor dissertation, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea, 2015.
  34. Lesh, R. A.; Doerr, H. M. Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Routledge: London, U. K., 2003; pp 159-173.
  35. Schwarz, C. V.; White, B. Y. Cognition and Instruction 2005, 23, 165. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
  36. Sins, P. H.; Savelsbergh, E. R.; van Joolingen, W. R. International Journal of Science Education 2005, 27, 1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500206408
  37. dos Santos, A. K.; Ogborn, J. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1994, 10, 182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1994.tb00294.x
  38. White, B. Y.; Frederiksen, J. R. Cognition and Instruction 1998, 16, 3. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
  39. Ingham, A. M.; Gilbert, J. K. International Journal of Science Education 1991, 13, 193. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130206
  40. Chabalengula, V. M.; Mumba, F. International Journal of Biology Education, 2012, 2, 1.
  41. McDermott, M.; Kuhn, M. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2011, 41, 1.
  42. Sampson, V.; Clark, D. B. Science Education 2008, 92, 447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  43. Duschl, R. A.; Osborne, J. Studies in Science Education 2002, 28, 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187