Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

'Neonadeuri' of 'Unripe' and 'Ripe': Science Learning as Heterogeneous Network

'설다'와 '익다'의 너나들이 -이종네트워크로서 과학학습-

  • Received : 2020.10.08
  • Accepted : 2020.11.12
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As an attempt to consider what to pay attention to in science learning, this study was conducted with the aim of discussing the meaning of science learning as a heterogeneous network. As a result of theoretical investigation, the characteristics of the heterogeneous network were described in three aspects: heterogeneous composition, existence by relations, and construction and change by translation. And it was discussed that science learning also has these characteristics of heterogeneous network. Relating to what to pay attention to in science learning, it was also discussed that science learning as a heterogeneous network requires us to pay attention to the elevation of things, the concept as a punctualized heterogeneous network, and the construction and expansion of heterogeneous network with neonadeuri of 'unripe' and 'ripe'. Finally, several suggestions for the science learning were given.

이 연구는 과학학습에서 무엇에 주목해야 하느냐는 고민의 연장선에서 이종네트워크로서의 과학학습의 의미에 대해 논의하는 것을 목적으로 수행되었다. 연구 결과, 이론적 논의를 통해 이종네트워크가 갖는 특징을 이종적 구성, 관계에 의한 존재, 번역에 의한 구축과 변화라는 세 가지 측면에서 살펴볼 수 있었다. 그리고 과학학습 역시 이러한 이종네트워크의 특성이 있음을 논의하였다. 더불어서, 이종네트워크로서 과학학습은 우리에게 사물의 격상, 결절된 이종네트워크로서의 개념, '설다'와 '익다'의 너나들이라는 이종네트워크의 구축과 확장으로서의 학습 과정에 주목할 것을 요청하고 있음을 논의하였다. 끝으로 이를 바탕으로 과학학습과 관련하여 몇 가지 제언을 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Blok, A. & Jensen, T. E. (2011). Bruno Latour: Hybrid thoughts in a hybrid world. London: Routledge.
  2. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Callon, M.(1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St. Brieuc's Bay. In J. Law (ed.). Power, Action and Belief: a New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London: Routledge.
  4. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.) A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132-161). London: Routledge.
  5. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.2307/3341747
  6. Carroll, M. (2018). Understanding curriculum: An Actor Network Theory approach. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 9(3), 247-261. https://doi.org/10.37237/090302
  7. Cole, H., & Raven, R. (1969). Principle learning as a function of instruction on excluding irrelevant variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(3), 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660060307
  8. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  9. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
  10. Dong, P. I. (2019). Diverse and complicated networks that digital pictures construct in early childhood classrooms: Focusing on Actor-Network Theory. The Journal of Anthropology of Education, 22(3), 173-198. https://doi.org/10.17318/jae.2019.22.3.006
  11. Driver, R. (1983). The pupils as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  12. Elam, M., Solli, A., & Makitalo, A. (2019). Socioscientific issues via controversy mapping: Bringing actor-network theory into the science classroom with digital technology. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1549704
  13. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.
  14. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M.(1983). Concepts, misconception and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education, Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905
  15. Ha, H., & Kim, H. -B., (2019). A theoretical investigation on agency to facilitate the understanding of student-centered learning communities in science classrooms. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(1), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.1.101
  16. Hong, S. (2010). Understaing ANT with 7 thesis. In S. Hong (Ed.). Human.Things.Alliance: Actor-Network Theory and technoscience [7가지 테제로 이해하는 ANT. 홍성욱 편, 인간.사물.동맹: 행위자네트워크 이론과 테크노사이언스] (pp. 15-35). Seoul: Eum.
  17. Joung, Y. J. (2009). Children's Typically-Perceived-Situations of floating and sinking. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 101-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701744603
  18. Joung, Y. J., & Gunstone, R. (2010). Children's Typically-Perceived-Situations of force and no force in the context of Australia and Korea. International Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1959-1615. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903159352
  19. Joung, Y. J, (2014). Theoretical investigation on the implications of the 'Community of Inquiry' for science education: Toward 'Community of Inquiry in Science Classroom'. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0303
  20. Joung, Y. J. (2018). Community of inquiry in science classroom [과학교실탐구공동체]. Seoul: Bookshill.
  21. Joung, Y. J, (2020). Exploring the implications of heterogeneous network perspectives on teaching practicum, Teaching Practicum Research, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.35733/tpr.2020.2.1.1
  22. Kim, H. -S. (2011). Technoscience and democracy from the perspective of ANT. Journal of Korean Social Trend and Perspective, 83, 11-46.
  23. Komatsu, L.K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 500-526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.500
  24. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific knowledge. NJ: Princeton University Press.
  25. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  27. Latour, B. (1989). The moral dilemmas of a safety belt (trans. L Davis). Retrived from: https://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-tpl/s11/w/images/6/69/The_Moral_Dilemmas_of_a_Safety-belt.pdf.
  28. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.). A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination (103-31), London: Routledge.
  29. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  30. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369-381.
  31. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
  32. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the Actor-Netwok: Odering, strategy and heterogeneity, Systems Practice, 5(4), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059830
  35. Law, J. (2009). Actor Network Theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed). The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory (141-158). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  36. Lee, M., & Kim, H. -B. (2019). Key stages of a research and students' epistemic agency in a student-driven R&E. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(4), 511-523.
  37. Lee, S., Kim, C. -J., Choe, S. U., Yoo, J., Park, H., Kang, E., & Kim, H. -B. (2012). Exploring the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 805-822. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.805
  38. Lee, S. S. (2012). New directions in educational innovation as a response to the networked society. Teacher Education Research, 51(2), 282-296. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.51.2.201208.282
  39. Mattozzi, A. (2019), What can ANT still learn from semiotics? In A. Blok, I. Farias, & C. Roberts (Eds.). The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory Routledge (pp. 87-100). London: Routledge.
  40. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469-1481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469
  41. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 86, 207-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207
  42. Medin, D. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 158-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90018-7
  43. Ministry of Education (2015). The 2015 revised science curriculum.
  44. Mol, A. (2010). Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft, 50, 253-269.
  45. National Institute of Korean Language (2020). Standard Korean language dictionary. Retrieved from: https://stdict.korean.go.kr/search/
  46. Oh, E. -K. (2010). Consilience or heterogeneous networks: An analysis of communication structure for the interdisciplinary studies. Sogang Humanities Journal, 29, 265-301.
  47. Paledi, V. N., & Alexander, P. M. (2017). Actor‐Network Theory to depict context‐sensitive m‐learning readiness in higher education. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 83(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2017.tb00619.x
  48. Park, H. -Y. (2019a). Ontological understanding of posthuman learners and the paradigm shift of learning theories. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 31(1), 121-145. https://doi.org/10.17927/TKJEMS.2019.31.1.121
  49. Park, H. -Y. (2019b). Posthuman onto-epistemology and the transition of learner subjectivity. Philosophy of Education, 73, 81-119.
  50. Park, H. -Y. (2020). Posthuman literacy: Its concept, categories, theoretical basis, and the directions of education. The Korean Journal of Literacy Research 11(1), 11-55.
  51. Pellicano, E., Brett, S., den Houting, J., Heyworth, M., Magiati, I., Steward, R., Urbanowicz, A., & Stears, M. (2020). "I want to see my friends": The everyday experiences of autistic people and their families during COVID-19. Sydney, Australia.
  52. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12 (November 1877), 1-15. In C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (Eds.) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 5 (1931-1958) (pp. 223-247). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.
  53. Peirce, C. S. (1878). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. Popular Science Monthly, 13, 470-482. In C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (Eds.) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2 (1931-1958) (pp. 372-388). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.
  54. Pierce, C. (2015). Learning about a fish from an ANT: Actor network theory and science education in the postgenomic era. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(1), 83-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9498-3
  55. Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
  56. Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559-589. https://doi.org/10.1086/230316
  57. Roehl, T. (2012). From witnessing to recording-material objects and the epistemic configuration of science classes. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.649415
  58. Rosch, E., & Marvis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories, Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  59. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 293-347. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0803&4_1
  60. Ryu, J. -H., Choi, Y. -M., Kim, R. -H., & You, Y. -M. (2016). An Inquiry into the Identity of Educational Technology, Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.32.1.001
  61. Sayes, E. (2014). Actor-Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713511867
  62. Seong, T. (2017). Suggestions for the human character and education in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 1-21.
  63. Shin, S., Ha, M., & Lee, J. -K. (2020). Images of decomposition of hydrogen peroxide demonstration represented in new media contents: Focusing on simulacra and simulation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(1), 13-28.
  64. Smith, E. (1989). Concepts and induction. In M. Posner (Ed.). Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 501-526). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  65. Song, J., Kang, S.-J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., Do, J.-H., Min, B., Park, S. C., Bae, S., Son, Y.-A, Son, J. W., Oh, P. S., Lee, J.-K., Lee, H. J., Ihm, H., Jeong, D. H., Jung, J. H., Kim, J., & Joung, Y. J. (2019). Contents and features of 'Korean Science Education Standards (KSES)' for the next generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 465-478, https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.3.465
  66. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528820040302
  67. Yoon, M., & Kwon, J. (2013). Creative value connection and hyper connected society [창조적 가치연결, 초연결사회의 도래]. IT & Future Strategy, 10, 1-39.
  68. Way, W. C. (1997). Connectionism and conceptual structure. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(6), 729-753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040006005
  69. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.