Journal of Science Education (과학교육연구지)

Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University (경북대학교 과학교육연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the Nature of Science (NOS) in Integrated Science Textbooks of the 2015 Revised Curriculum

2015 개정 교육과정 통합과학 교과서의 과학의 본성(NOS) 분석

  • Received : 2020.10.03
  • Accepted : 2020.12.16
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the presentation of the Nature of Science (NOS) in integrated science textbooks of the 2015 revised curriculum. The five integrated science textbooks published by the revised 2015 curriculum were analyzed with the conceptual framework of the four themes of the Nature of Science (NOS) (Lee, 2013) based on scientific literacy. The four themes of the NOS are 1. nature of scientific knowledge (theme I), 2. nature of scientific inquiry (theme II), 3. nature of scientific thinking (theme III), and 4. nature of interactions among science, technology, and society. The reliability of the textbooks analysis was measured between two coders by the Cohen's kappa and resulted in between 0,83 and 0,96, which means the results of analysis was consistent and reliable. The findings were as follows. First, overall theme II, nature of scientific inquiry emphasized on the integrated science textbooks of the 2015 revised curriculum by devoting the contents over 40 % in the all five publishing companies' textbooks. Second, while the theme II, nature of scientific inquiry was emphasized on the textbooks regardless of the publishing companies, other themes of the NOS were emphasized in different portions by the publishing companies. Thus, the focus among other three themes of the NOS was presented differently by the publishing companies except that in theme II, nature of scientific inquiry was most emphasized on integrated science textbooks. Third, the presentation of the NOS was identified similarly across the topics of integrated science textbooks except on topic 4. Environment and Energy. The theme IV, nature of interactions among science, technology, and society was emphasized reasonably only in the topic of Environment and Energy of the textbooks. Finally, the presentation of the NOS in the integrated science textbooks of the 2015 revised curriculum were more balanced among the four themes of the NOS with focus on the scientific inquiry compared to the previous curriculum textbooks.

본 연구에서는 2015 개정 교육과정 고등학교 통합과학 교과서에 나타난 과학의 본성(NOS) 분포를 분석하였다. 분석 대상은 2015 개정 교육과정으로 출판된 통합과학 교과서 5종 모두를 분석하였으며, 분석의 개념적 틀로는 과학적 소양 기반 4가지 영역의 과학의 본성(NOS)(Lee, 2013)을 활용하였다. 4가지 영역의 과학의 본성(NOS)은 1. 과학지식의 본성(nature of scientific knowledge), 2. 과학적 탐구의 본성(nature of scientific inquiry), 3. 과학적 사고의 본성(nature of scientific thinking), 그리고 4. 과학과 기술 및 사회의 상호작용의 본성(nature of interactions among science, technology, and society)이다. 분석은 2명의 분석자가 수행하였으며, 두 분석자간의 신뢰도는 Cohen's kappa 계수 0.83 ~ 0.96으로 비교적 높은 신뢰도 값을 나타냈다. 분석 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 2015 개정 교육과정 통합과학 교과서에서는 과학의 본성(NOS) 4가지 측면 중에서 '과학탐구의 본성(nature of scientific inquiry)' 영역을 전반적으로 가장 강조하고 있었다. 이것은 통합과학 교과서 5개 출판사 전체 영역에서 '과학 탐구의 본성(범주 II)'의 분포가 평균 약 44 %로 나타나는 것에서 확인할 수 있었다. 둘째, 2015 개정 교육과정 통합과학 교과서는 출판사에 상관없이 '과학탐구의 본성(범주 II)'을 가장 강조하고 있었지만, 그외 다른 측면의 과학의 본성(NOS) 부분은 출판사별로 다소 차이가 나타나고 있었다. 따라서 통합과학 교과서들은 과학적 내용과 활동을 탐구하는 방법으로서 주로 제시하면서 출판사별로 다소 다르게 과학의 본성(NOS) 특징을 강조하고 있다고 말할 수 있다. 셋째, 2015 개정 교육과정 통합과학 교과서에서 강조하는 과학의 본성(NOS) 측면은 4. 환경과 에너지 단원을 제외하고 모든 단원에서 유사하게 나타났다. 이것은 과학의 본성(NOS) 단원별 분석 결과가 대부분의 단원에서 전체 교과서 분석 결과와 유사한 양상이었으며, 4. 환경과 에너지 단원에서만 범주 II의 '과학 탐구의 본성' 영역 다음으로 '과학-기술-사회와 상호작용하는 과학의 본성(STS)(범주 IV)'이 강조되고 있는 것에서 확인할 수 있다. 이와 같은 결과는 2015 개정 교육과정 통합 과학 교과서가 지난 교육과정에 비하여 비교적 다양하고 균형 있는 과학의 본성(NOS) 측면을 제시하고 있으며, 2015 개정 교육과정의 목표인 과학적 문제해결력과 창의력 증진을 위하여 과학적 탐구를 강조를 하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Barelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communications research. New York, NY: Free Press.
  4. Celik, S., & Bayrakceken, S. (2006). The effect of a 'science, technology and society' course on perspective teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140600811692
  5. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808
  6. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analasis of five high school biology textbooks uesd in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(15), 1847-1868.
  7. Chiappetta, E. L., Lee, Y. H., & Phillips, M. C. (2006). Examination of science textbooks published over the past 100 years in the United States. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching meeting. San Francisco, CA.
  8. Chiappctta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  9. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science instruction in the middle and secondary school (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  10. Choi, Y. H. (2005). The analyses of history science contents in science textbook for elementary, middle and high schools focused on nature of science (Master thesis). Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  11. Choi, S. H. (2007). Analysis of the nature of science in 10th grade science textbooks (Master Thesis). Jeonnam National University, Gwangju.
  12. Jeong, G., Hwang, S., & Chung, Y. (2015). Analysis of the nature of science in the history of science section in middle school science textbooks based on the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 19(2), 389-405. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2015.19.2.389
  13. Jeong, S. Y., & Chang, J. H. (2019). Analysis of inquiry activity types in the high school life science II textbooks according to the 2015 revised science curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 43(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.1.43
  14. Jung, N. (2009). Analysis of the nature of science depicted on the 2009 revised Highschool Life Science II textbook (Master Thesis). Korea University, Seoul.
  15. Kim, J. (2011). Analyss of the nature of science relfected in the elementary school textbooks of South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. (Master Thesis). Dankook University, Gyeonggi.
  16. Kim, J., Lee, Y. H., & Min, B. (2016). Analysis of the presentation for the nature of science (NOS) in life science chapters of the 2009 revised middle school science textbooks. Biology Education, 44(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2016.44.1.25
  17. Kim H. J., Choi, S. Y., Hwang, Y. J., Lee, J, E., Kim, S. W., & Lee, M. K. (2006). An analysis pf middle school science textbooks based on scientific literacy. Journal of the Korean Association of Research in Science Education, 26(4), 601-609.
  18. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  19. Lee, S,. & Woo, A,. (2017). An analysis of nature of science reflected on the middle school 3rd grade science textbooks for the 2009 revised curriculum. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 17(19), 285-309.
  20. Lee, Y. H. (2007). How do the high school biology textbooks introduce the nature of science? (Doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, Houston, TX.
  21. Lee, Y. H. (2013a). A proposal of inclusive framework of the nature of science (NOS) based on the 4 themes of scientific literacy for K-12 school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 553-568. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.3.553
  22. Lee, Y. H. (2013b). Nature of science (NOS) presentation in the introductory chapters of Korean high school life science I textbooks using a qualitative content analysis. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 17(1), 173-197. https://doi.org/10.24231/RICI.2013.17.1.173
  23. Lee, Y. H. (2014). Comparative analysis of the presentation of the nature of science (NOS) in Korea and US elementary science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 207-212. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0207
  24. Lee, Y. H. (2018). Suggesting the conceptual framework of the nature of technology (NOT) and examining the conceptions of experts of science, technology, and engineering fields regarding the NOT. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.27
  25. Lee, Y. H., Son, Y., & Kim, K. (2014). Analysis of the presentation for the nature of science in elementary science textbooks using the four themes of scientific literacy. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(2), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.2.207
  26. Lee, Y. H., Lee, S. K., Kim, Y. S., Baek, B. B., Hong, S., & Im, J. (2018). The vision and direction of the future education in the preK - 12 school education. The report of study for the educational policy, Committee of National Government Education.
  27. McDonal, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1137-1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20377
  28. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). 2015 Revised Science Curriculum (2015-74, Separate books 9). Seoul: Author.
  29. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2018). Elementary school science textbook (Field Review, 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, 6-2). Sejong: Author.
  30. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996): National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  31. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscurtting concept, and core idea. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  32. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science Education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
  33. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  34. Shin, Y. O., & Choi, B. (2012). A survey of the management status and school teachers' perception of science based on 2009 curriculum revision. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(10), 1599-1612. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2012.32.10.1599
  35. Park, E. U., & Lee, Y. H. (2016). The analysis of inquiry activities in high school science textbooks for the 2009 revised curriculum. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(8), 419-438.
  36. Park, Y., & Woo, A,. (2017). An analysis of the nature of science included in the first grade of middle school science textbook for the 2009 revised curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 21(3), 225-239. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2017.21.3.225
  37. Seo, D., Lee, Y. H., & Jho, H. (2017). Understanding of students at a technical high school about the nature of technology through the course of science and technology course. Biology Education, 45(1), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.1.199