Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Teachers' Perceptions of Explanatory Method Based-on Process Viewpoint for Floating and Sinking Phenomena

뜨고 가라앉는 현상에 대한 과정적 관점 설명방식에 대한 교사들의 인식

  • Received : 2020.06.09
  • Accepted : 2020.10.07
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, the existing concept of density has a limitation in providing the cause of phenomena, and the concept of buoyancy poses a problem because it has many misconceptions and requires an overly difficult concept to understand quantitative calculation, so we suggest an explaining method as process viewpoint introducing the principle of lever. The new method of explanation has been proposed using the lever as visual tool to reveal the gravity as the fundamental principle and process viewpoint. As a result, teachers stayed on many alternative concepts and less than half of the teachers were aware that density was related to gravity. In addition, they recognized it as matter viewpoints, but there is a meaningful conceptual change after intervention(p<.000). Also, they evaluated that the new method is better able to recognize the principle and process viewpoint than the existing description method. Through this, we can confirm the educational value of explaining method as process viewpoint introducing the principle of lever.

본 연구는 기존의 밀도라는 개념은 현상에 대한 원인자를 제공하는데 한계점이 있으며, 부력이라는 개념은 많은 오개념을 갖고 있고 정량적 계산을 이해하기 위해 지나치게 어려운 개념이 필요함에 문제를 제기하여 지레의 원리를 적용한 과정적 관점의 새로운 설명방식을 제안하였다. 새로운 설명방식은 중력이라는 근본원리와 과정적 관점이 드러나도록 지레라는 가시적 도구를 활용하여 제안되었다. 연구결과, 교사들은 많은 대안개념에 머물러 있었으며 밀도가 중력과 관련됨을 인식하는 교사는 절반이상 되지 않았다. 뿐만 아니라 이 현상을 물질적 관점으로 이해하면서 관점과 불일치하게 인식하였으나 수업처치 후 유의미한 개념 변화를 하였다(p<.000). 또한, 기존의 설명방식에 비해 원리와 과정적 관점을 잘 인식할 수 있다는 평가를 하였다. 이를 통해 지레의 원리를 도입한 과정적 과점의 설명방식에 대한 교육적 가치를 확인할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153
  2. Baik, E. J., & Song, E. Y. (2009). A study on children's conceptions of the objects' floating-and-Sinking phenomenon. The Journal of Korea Open Association for Early Childhood Education, 14(3), 155-176.
  3. Butts, D. P., Hofman, H. M., & Anderson, M. (1993). Is hands-on experience enough? A study of young children's views of sinking and floating objects. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03170644
  4. Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
  5. Chi, M. T., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5
  6. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 463-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9059-4
  7. Dentici, O. A., Grossi, M. G., Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., & Massara, C. I. (1984). Understanding floating: A study of children aged between six and eight years. European Journal of Science Education, 6(3), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528840060305
  8. Galilei, G. (1968). The Little Balance. McGraw-Hill.
  9. Hadjiachilleos, S., Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2013). The impact of cognitive and affective aspects of cognitive conflict on learners' conceptual change about floating and sinking. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.811074
  10. Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Moller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of floating and sinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307
  11. Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2005). Examining young children's conceptual change process in floating and sinking from a social constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243736
  12. Howe, C. J. (2016). Conceptual structure in childhood and adolescence: The case of everyday physics. London: Routledge.
  13. Kim, S. K., Kim, S. W., & Paik. S. H. (2017). The effect of explanation in conjunction with gravity and density on students' alternative conceptions for floating and sinking phenomena. Journal of the Korea Chemistry Society, 61(3), 112-121.
  14. Kim, S. K., Park, C. Y., Choi, H., & Paik, S. H. (2017). An analysis of chemistry textbooks' and teachers' conceptions on Bronsted-Lowry acid-base. Journal of the Korea Chemistry Society, 61(2), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2017.61.2.65
  15. Kim, S. K., Park, C. Y., Choi, H., & Paik. S. H. (2018). Evaluation of stated models for the floating and sinking phenomena in the chemical domain. Journal of the Korea Chemistry Society, 62(3), 226-234.
  16. Kim, S., Choi, H., & Paik, S. H. (2019). Using a systems thinking approach and a scratch computer program to improve students' understanding of the Bronsted-Lowry acid-base model. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2926-2936. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00210
  17. Kim, S., & Paik, S. H. (in press). Archimedes' balance approach applied to buoyant force. The Physics Teacher.
  18. Kim, Y. Y., & Kim, J. N. (2012). Analysis of the middle school students' conceptions about buoyancy. Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2012.36.2.369
  19. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualizations in Science Education (pp. 121-146). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  20. Kwon, D. H., & Kown, S. G. (2000). Elementary school students conceptions of buoyance related with cognitive levels. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 131-143.
  21. Lee, H. C., & Lee, S. J. (2000). An investigation of elementary school teachers' conceptions on buoyancy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(1), 145-156.
  22. Lee, S. H., & Paik, S. H. (2013). Suggestion for science Education through the analysis of Archimedes' creative problem solving process. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.030
  23. Leuchter, M., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2014). Designing science learning in the first years of schooling. An intervention study with sequenced learning material on the topic of 'floating and sinking'. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1751-1771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.878482
  24. Lynch, M. (2006). The production of scientific images: vision and re-vision in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. In L Pauwels (Ed.), Visual cultures of science: rethinking representational practices in knowledge building and science communication (pp. 26-40). Lebanon, NH: Darthmouth College Press.
  25. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
  26. Paik, S. H. (2015). Understanding the relationship among Arrhenius, Bronsted-lowry, and Lewis theories. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(9), 1484-1489. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500891w
  27. Paik, S., Song, G., Kim, S., & Ha, M. (2017). Developing a four-level learning progression and assessment for the concept of buoyancy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13, 4965-4986.
  28. Piaget (2005). The child's conception of physical causality. Oxon: Routledge.
  29. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child's construction of physical quantities. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  30. Radovanovic, J., & Slisko, J. (2013). Applying a predict-observe-explain sequence in teaching of buoyant force. Physics Education, 48(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/48/1/28
  31. Rhee, J. S., & Lee, B. W. (2010). Analysis of elementary and secondary students' conceptions about buoyant force. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 60(2), 93-99. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.60.93
  32. Skoumios, M. (2009). The Effect of sociocognitive conflict on students' dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(4), 381-399.
  33. Spyrtou, A., Zoupidis, A., & Kariotoglou, P. (2008). The design and development of an ICT-enhanced module concerning density as a property of materials applied in floating-sinking phenomena. Ιn: CP Constantinou & N. Papadouris. In Girep International Conference, Physics Curriculum Design, Development and Validation, Selected Papers (pp. 391-407).
  34. Unal, S.,;Costu, B.; Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float. In Asia-Pasific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 2005, 6, 1.
  35. Yin, Y. (2012). Applying scientific principles to resolve student misconceptions. Science scope, 35(8), 48.
  36. Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions: Floating and sinking. Science scope, 31(8), 34.
  37. Yoon, H. G. (2018). Development and validation of visual representation competence taxonomy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(2), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.2.161