Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Scientific Empathy Discovered in Scientists' Problem-Solving Process

과학자의 문제 해결 과정에서 탐색된 과학 공감

  • Received : 2019.02.16
  • Accepted : 2019.03.25
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to extract empathy factor in scientists' problem-solving process and to examine how the empathy factor influences scientists' problem-solving situation. In this study, we selected six common persons among the scientists mentioned by creativity researchers. And through their autobiographies and biographies, we extracted elements of empathy from their case of problem-solving and categorized them. We analyzed cases from 12 books and 50 papers using Davis' empathy scale as an analysis framework and extracted common factors. As a result, the scientific empathy elements were extracted from a total of 182 cases, and 33 common elements were found. The validity of this case was verified through the content validity test of the science education specialist group. As a result, the I-CVI average was .86 and the S-CVI average was .90. For the empathy elements that scientists used in problem-solving cases, in cognitive empathy, three elements (empathy through other disciplines, empathy from the perspective of the research object, accommodating others' opinions) were extracted in terms of perspective-taking, and three elements (imagination thought experiment based on observation, thought experiment, feeling like part of object) in fantasy. And in affective empathy, three elements (influenced by fellow researchers' motivation, touching from the subject, excitement studying more) were extracted in terms of empathic concern and two elements (heartache for others' failure in their research, sensitivity to problems) in personal depression. This could not be said to be a perfect match for Davis' empathy, but it would be possible to define the scientific empathy elements based on these common elements found in the scientists' cases.

본 연구의 목적은 과학자들의 문제 해결 과정에서 공감요소를 추출하고 그 공감요소가 과학자들의 문제 해결 상황에서 어떤 영향을 주고 있는지 확인해보고자 한다. 이에 본 연구는 창의성 연구자들이 언급한 과학자들 중 공통인물 6명을 분석대상으로 선정하고 그들의 자서전 및 그들의 일대기에 관련한 논문을 통해 그들의 문제 해결 사례에서 공감요소를 추출하여 이를 유목화 하였다. 총 12개의 서적과 50여개의 논문에서 제시한 사례를 Davis의 공감척도를 분석틀로 분석하였고 공통요인을 추출하였다. 그 결과 총 182개의 사례에서 과학 공감요소가 추출되었고, 이 중 33개의 공통요소가 발견되었다. 과학교육전문가집단의 내용타당도 검사를 통하여 본 사례의 타당도를 확인한 결과, 전문가의 내용타당도 I-CVI 평균은 .86, S-CVI 평균 .90값이 확인되었다. 과학자들이 문제 해결사례에서 활용하고 있는 공감요소는 인지적 공감으로 관점 취하기 측면에서 3가지(다른 학문 분야를 통한 공감, 연구대상의 관점에서 공감, 다른 사람의 의견 수용), 상상하기 측면에서 3가지(관찰 근거의 상상, 사고 실험, 연구 대상에 대한 유기체적 느낌), 정서적 공감으로 공감적 관심측면에서 3가지(동료 연구자의 의욕에 따른 반응, 연구대상에 대한 감동, 더 연구하고 싶은 흥분), 개인적 각성 측면에서 2가지(타인의 연구실패에 대한 불편한 감정, 문제에 대한 민감성)가 추출되었다. 이는 Davis의 공감요소와 완벽하게 일치한다고 할 수 없었으나 과학자들의 사례에서 발견되는 이러한 공통되는 요소를 기초로 과학 공감요소에 대한 정의가 가능할 것이다.

Keywords

Table 1. The Criteria for selecting scientists

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_249_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980)

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_249_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Empathy factors related to problem-solving steps

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_249_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. An example of a professional questionnaire for the validation of the content validity of empathic cases in the problem solving situation of scientists (Lynn, 1986)

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_249_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Empathy element of Scientist extracted through critical incident technique analysis

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_249_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. The active and passive empathy elements extracted from the problem-solving situation of scientists

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_249_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. The personal and interpersonal empathy elements extracted from the problem-solving situation of scientists

GHGOBX_2019_v39n2_249_t0007.png 이미지

References

  1. Basadur, M. (1994). Managing the creative process in organizations. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 237-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  2. Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and cognition, 14(4), 698-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004
  3. Bowler, P. J.(1990). Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence.Cambridge University Press.
  4. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., and Krajcik, J. (2011). Reconceptualization of Scientific Literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424
  5. Chun, O., Yang, H., & Kang, S. J. (2018). Exploration of empathy factors in the science and development of related scales. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-23.
  6. Cox, C. M. (1983). The early mental traits of 300 geniuses. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence: The social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement (pp. 46-51). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
  7. Crombie, A. C. (1990). Science, optics, and music in medieval and early modern thought. A&C Black.
  8. Davis, M. H., & American Psychological Association. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Retrieved from https://www.uv.es/friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf.
  9. Darwin, C. (1887). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. Barnes & Noble Publishing.
  10. Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (2009). Darwin's sacred cause: race, slavery and the quest for human origins. Penguin UK.
  11. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176933
  12. Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00050-7
  13. Duckworth, E. (2001). Inventing density. In E. Duckworth (Ed.), "Tell me more": Listening to learners explain(pp. 1 - 41). New York, NY: Teacher's College Press. (Original work published 1986)
  14. Egan, G. (1990). The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping (4th ed.). Belmont, CA, US: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
  15. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 101-131.
  16. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. (2013). The future of employment. How susceptible are jobs to computerisation.
  17. Goldstein, A. P., & Michaels, G. Y. (1985). Empathy: Development, training, and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. Hanson, N.R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. London : Cambridge University Press
  19. Herbert, S.(1971). 'Darwin, Malthus, and selection'. Journal of the History of Biology. 4. 209-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00356983
  20. Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in a comprehensive moral theory. In J. Gerwitz & W. Kurtines (Ends.). Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development, (pp. 283-302). New York: Wiley.
  21. Howe, D. (2012). Empathy: What it is and why it matters. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  22. Hwang, Hee-sook (2018). Thought Experiments: on the Working Imagination and its Limitation. philosophical studies, 146, 307-328.
  23. Isaacson, W. (2008). Einstein: His life and universe. Simon and Schuster.
  24. Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21202
  25. Jung, D. (2017). Double Helix and X-ray Diffraction Photograph of DNA-Can the Data used to construct aHypothesis be Evidence to the Hypothesis? -. Korean Journal of Philosophy, 132, 237-264. https://doi.org/10.18694/KJP.2017.08.132.237
  26. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  27. Keyes, T. (1997). Instantaneous normal mode approach to liquid state dynamics. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 101(16), 2921-2930. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp963706h
  28. Kim, C., Jo, J., Kim, B., Kim, Ye., Pak, C., I Y., Jang, M., Ju, Ch., Hong, H., Yun, H., & Cha, S. (2012). Long-term Vision of National Education: Educational Vision and Strategy for the Next 10 Years (gug-ga-gyo-yug-ui jang-gi-bi-jeon: hyang-hu 10nyeon-ui gyo-yug-bi-jeon-gwa jeon-lyag) (CR2011-106). Chungbuk: Korean Educational Development Institute
  29. Kim, G. (1997). Physics of Galileo. Seoul; Bumyeongsa, 241-255.
  30. Kim, T. (2015). A Study on Empathy. Elementary Moral Education, 47, 1-27.
  31. Kim, Y., Seo, H., & Park, J. (2013). An analysis on problem-finding patterns of well-known creative scientists. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 33(7), 1285-1299. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1285
  32. Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.524
  33. Krznaric, R. (2014). Empathy: A handbook for revolution. Random House
  34. Kragel, P. A., & LaBar, K. S. (2015). Multi-variate neural bio-markers of emotional states are categorically distinct. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(11), 1437-1448. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv032
  35. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  36. Lawson, A. E. (2002). What does Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons tell us about the process of scientific discovery? Science & Education, 11, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013048828150
  37. Lee Choong Hoon. (2014). Une <> anticipee et prepare par Lavoisier:idee et perspective de la revolution lavoisienne de la chimie. Revue d'Etudes Francophones, 24, 287-320.
  38. Lee, J., You S., & Lee, Y. (2014b). A Study on the Development of Empathy based Learning Model. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 151-177. https://doi.org/10.14333/KJTE.2014.30.4.151
  39. Lee, Y., Yoon, J., Hong, S., Lim, J., Baek, B. (2018). A Meta-Analysis of the New Challenges and Approaches for Future Education. Journal of Education & Culture, 24(5), 127-153.
  40. Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics Taylor & Francis. Inc. Bristol, PA Google Scholar.
  41. Lim, S. (2005). Trends and significance of research about beliefs in physics education and cultural approaches. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(3), 371-381
  42. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196101010-00004
  43. Mansfield, R. S., & Busse, T. V. (1981). The psychology of creativity and discovery: Scientists and their work. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  44. Marton, F., Fensham, P., & Chaiklin, S. (1994). A Nobel's eye view of scientific intuition: discussions with the Nobel prize-winners in physics, chemistry and medicine (1970-86). International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 457-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069940160406
  45. Martin, R. L. (2010). Design thinking. (Lee, G. Trans.). Soeul: Ungjinwingseu. (Original work published in 2009).
  46. Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 Science curriculum (Notification No.2015-74 of the Ministry of Education).
  47. Millar, A. I. (2000). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. London, UK: The MIT Press.
  48. Mun, J., Mun, K., Kim, S-W (2013). Scientists'Perceptions of Imagination and Characteristics of the Scientific Imagination. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(7), 1403-1417. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1403
  49. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  50. National Research Council (NRC). 2011. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  51. Newton, C., & Wells, B. (1999). The development of between-word processes in the connected speech of children aged between three and seven. Whurr Publishers Ltd.
  52. OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 Draft collaborate problem solving framework, March 2013. Paris: OECD publishing.
  53. OECD (2016). Global competency for an inclusive world. Paris: OECD publishing.
  54. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simmon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  55. Park, J. (2010). Future Education Vision Research (Mirae gyoyung bijeon yeongu). Chungbuk: Korean Educational Development Institute.
  56. Park, S. (2004). Empathy: Yesterday and Today (kong-kam-hak: eo-je-wa o-neul). Hakjisa: Seoul.
  57. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: "Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
  58. Prisecaru, P. (2016). Challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. Knowledge Horizons. Economics, 8(1), 57.
  59. Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis Penguin (Lee, K. Trans.). Seoul: Mineumsa. (Original work published in 2009).
  60. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. M. (2007). Sparks of genius. (Park, J. Trans.). Seoul: Ekoui seojae. (Original work published in 2001).
  61. Roth, W.-M. (2007). Mathematical modeling "in the wild": A case of hot cognition. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future of mathematics education (pp. 77-97). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  62. Ruse, M. (2010). Science and spirituality: Making room for faith in the age of science. Cambridge University Press.
  63. Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559-580. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760602
  64. Saarimaki, H., Gotsopoulos, A., Jaaskelainen, I. P., Lampinen, J., Vuilleumier, P., Hari, R., Sams, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2016). Discrete Neural Signatures of Basic Emotions. Cerebral Cortex, 26(6),2563-2573. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv086
  65. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books Press.
  66. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: a double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132(3), 617-627 https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn279
  67. Smith, A. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. The Psychological Record, 56(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395534
  68. Song, S. (2007). But the Earth is spinning? Galileo Galile. The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers, 47(9), 29-32.
  69. Turner, J. H. (2009). The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1(4), 340-354 https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909338305
  70. Warnock, M. (1976). Imagination. London: Faber.
  71. Watson, J. D. (1968). The Double Helix: Being a Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. New York, Atheneum.
  72. 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 the Korean earth science society, 27(5), 509-520.
  73. Yerrick, R., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Introduction: The role of language in science learning and teaching. Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research, 1-18.
  74. Zembal-Saul, C., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2002). Elementary student teachers' science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10032

Cited by

  1. 디자인씽킹 기반 고등학교 화학 수업의 효과 연구 vol.64, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.3.159