Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Development of Data-Driven Science Inquiry Model and Strategy for Cultivating Knowledge-Information-Processing Competency

지식정보처리역량 함양을 위한 데이터 기반 과학탐구 모형 개발

  • Son, Mihyun (Center for Educational Research, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jeong, Daehong (Center for Educational Research, Seoul National University)
  • 손미현 (서울대학교 교육종합연구원) ;
  • 정대홍 (서울대학교 교육종합연구원)
  • Received : 2020.11.16
  • Accepted : 2020.12.18
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The knowledge-information-processing competency is the most essential competency in a knowledge-information-based society and is the most fundamental competency in the new problem-solving ability. Data-driven science inquiry, which emphasizes how to find and solve problems using vast amounts of data and information, is a way to cultivate the problem-solving ability in a knowledge-information-based society. Therefore, this study aims to develop a teaching-learning model and strategy for data-driven science inquiry and to verify the validity of the model in terms of knowledge information processing competency. This study is developmental research. Based on literature, the initial model and strategy were developed, and the final model and teaching strategy were completed by securing external validity through on-site application and internal validity through expert advice. The development principle of the inquiry model is the literature study on science inquiry, data science, and a statistical problem-solving model based on resource-based learning theory, which is known to be effective for the knowledge-information-processing competency and critical thinking. This model is titled "Exploratory Scientific Data Analysis" The model consisted of selecting tools, collecting and analyzing data, finding problems and exploring problems. The teaching strategy is composed of seven principles necessary for each stage of the model, and is divided into instructional strategies and guidelines for environment composition. The development of the ESDA inquiry model and teaching strategy is not easy to generalize to the whole school level because the sample was not large, and research was qualitative. While this study has a limitation that a quantitative study over large number of students could not be carried out, it has significance that practical model and strategy was developed by approaching the knowledge-information-processing competency with respect of science inquiry.

지식정보화 사회가 되면서 기존과는 다른 유형의 사회 문제들이 발생하고, 이를 파악하고 해결하는데 필수적인 역량으로 지식정보처리역량을 꼽을 수 있다. 지식정보처리역량은 정보의 수집과 분석, 활용을 할 수 있는 역량으로 학문 분야에 따라 그 적용이 달라질 수 있으므로 일반 소양적인 측면과 교과 맥락적인 측면으로 나누어 교육할 수 있다. 과학에서의 지식정보처리역량 함양 교육은 이제까지는 일반 소양적인 측면에서 주로 실행됐으므로, 과학 탐구 활동을 통해 교과 맥락적인 측면에서의 교육이 필요하다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 학교 현장에서 일반적으로 적용 가능한 지식정보처리함양을 위한 데이터 기반 과학탐구 모형과 수업전략을 개발하였다. 모형과 수업전략은 설계·개발 연구방법론에 따라 문헌연구를 바탕으로 모형과 수업전략을 1차 개발하고 전문가의 조언을 듣는 내적 타당화 과정과 실제 현장에 적용하는 외적 타당화 과정을 통해 수정, 개선하여 완성하였다. 자원기반학습 이론을 바탕으로 과학탐구 모형, 데이터 과학의 특징, 통계적 문제 해결력 모형에 대한 문헌 연구를 실시하였고, 전문가 5인의 자문을 받아 CVI, IRA 값을 구하고 면담을 통해 모형과 전략을 개선하였으며 두 번의 외적 타당화 과정을 거치며 현장 적용성 높은 모형과 전략을 완성하였다. 본 연구에서 개발한 모형은 탐색적 과학 데이터 분석 탐구모형(Exploratory Scientific Data Analysis Inquiry Model, 이하 ESDA 탐구모형)으로 학교의 상황에서 실행가능한 도구를 먼저 선택하고 데이터를 수집하며, 그 후 분석 과정에서 질문을 찾고, 이를 새로운 가설로 설정하여 또 다른 탐구를 진행하는 형태를 갖는다. 수업 전략은 최종 7가지 원리로 세분화 되었는데, 도구 탐색의 원리, 실생활 데이터 수집의 원리, 데이터 변형의 원리, 데이터 해석의 원리, 문제 구체화의 원리, 문제 해결의 원리, 표현과 공유의 원리이다. 각 원리는 탐구 모형과 연계되어 있으며, 교수 전략 뿐 아니라 탐구를 수행할 수 있는 환경 구성의 조건을 포함하고 있어 현장 적용성을 높이고자 하였다. 본 연구는 일반적인 대규모의 학생을 대상으로 양적 연구를 실시하지 못했다는 한계가 있으나 지식정보처리 역량을 과학탐구의 관점에서 접근하여 실제적 모형과 전략을 개발했다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Adams, M. D., DeLuca, P. F., Corr, D., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2012). Mobile air monitoring: Measuring change in air quality in the city of Hamilton, 2005-2010. Social indicators research, 108(2), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0061-5
  3. ALS(American Library Association) (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilstandardlo.html.
  4. Arends, R. I. (1998). Learning to teach(4th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill
  5. Barker, L. J. (2009). Science teachers' use of online resources and the digital library for Earth system education. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries ACM. pp. 1-10.
  6. Behrens, S. J. (1994). A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy. College & Research Libraries. April, 309-322.
  7. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crowford, B. A. & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school studentes' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10086
  8. Brickman, P., Gormally, C., Francom, G., Jardeleza, S. E., Schutte, V. G., Jordan, C., & Kanizay, L. (2012). Media-savvy scientific literacy: Developing critical evaluation skills by investigating scientific claims. The american biology Teacher, 74(6), 374-379. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.6.4
  9. Brogan, D. S., McDonald, W. M., Lohani, V. K., Dymond, R. L., & Bradner, A. J. (2016). Development and Classroom Implementation of an Environmental Data Creation and Sharing Tool. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(2), 1-34.
  10. Brown, C., & Krumholz, L. R. (2002). Integrating information literacy into the science curriculum. College and Research Libraries, 63(2), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.63.2.111
  11. Butler, S. M., & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Assessment: Understanding and Using Assessment to Improve Student Learning. Greensboro, NC:Jossey-Bass.
  12. Carlson, J., Fosmire, M., Miller, C. C., & Nelson, M. S. (2011). Determining data information literacy needs: A study of students and research faculty. Libraries and the Academy, 11(2), 629-657. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2011.0022
  13. Ceccucci, W., Tamarkin, D. & Jones, K. (2015). The Effectiveness of Data Science as a means to achieve Proficiency in Scientific Literacy. Information Systems Education Journal, 13(4), 64-70.
  14. Chang, B., Wang, H. Y., & Lin, Y. S. (2009). Enhancement of mobile learning using wireless sensor network. IEEE Learning Technology Newsletter, 11(1-2), 22-25.
  15. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research. Sage Publications Ltd, London.
  16. Cho, W., & Sung, K. (2009). Social Studies Education in knowledgeinformation-based Society: Change of Education and Curricular Orientations. Theory and Research in Citizenship Education, 41(1), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.35557/trce.41.1.200903.007
  17. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2004). Principles of instructional design for supporting the development of students' statistical reasoning. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 375-395.
  18. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20128
  19. Cook, J., Bedford, D., & Mandia, S. (2014). Raising climate literacy through addressing misinformation: Case studies in agnotology-based learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 296-306. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-071.1
  20. Deluca, V. W., & Lari, N. (2011). The GRID C Project: Developing Students' Thinking Skills in a Data-Rich Environment. Journal of Technology Education, 23(1), 5-18.
  21. Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). An investigation of the use of real-time, authentic geospatial data in the K-12 classroom. Journal of Geography, 106(6), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340701845219
  22. Drier, H. S., Dawson, K. M., & Garofalo, J. (1999). Not your typical math class. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 21-25.
  23. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1988). Curriculum Initiative: An Agenda and Strategy for Library Media Programs. Norwood, New Jersey, Ablex.
  24. Ellwein, A. L., Hartley, L. M., Donovan, S., & Billick, I. (2014). Using rich context and data exploration to improve engagement with climate data and data literacy: Bringing a field station into the college classroom. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(4), 578-586 https://doi.org/10.5408/13-034
  25. Erwin, Jr., and Robin, W. (2015). Data literacy: Real-world learning through problem-solving with data sets. American secondary education, 43(2), 18.
  26. Gebre, E. H. (2018). Young adults' understanding and use of data: insights for fostering secondary school students' data literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 18(4), 330-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-018-0034-z
  27. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social problems, 12(4), 436-445. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1965.12.4.03a00070
  28. Grant, J.S. & Davis, L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Researchin Nursing and Health, 20(3), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199706)20:3<269::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
  29. Griffis, K., Thadani, V., & Wise, J. (2008). Making authentic data accessible: The sensing the environment inquiry module. Journal of Biological Education, 42(3), 119-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656124
  30. Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science and Education, 11(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013076706416
  31. Han, E. (2002). A Study on the Social Constructivist Teaching-Learning Model in the Early Childhood Education. Journal of Young Child Studies, 5, 49-63.
  32. Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 337-364. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2703_5
  33. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., & Land, S. M. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94.
  34. Hoskins, S. G., & Stevens, L. M. (2009). Learning our LIMITS: less is more in teaching science. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 17-20. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90184.2008
  35. Hotaling, L., Lowes, S., Stolkin, R., Lin, P., Bonner, J., Kirkey, W., & Ojo, T. (2012). SENSE IT : Teaching STEM principles to middle and high school students through the design, construction and deployment of water quality sensors. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1-34.
  36. Hulsizer, M. R., & Woolf, L. M. (2009). A guide to teaching statistics: Innovations and best practices (Vol. 10). John Wiley and Sons.
  37. Hwang, H. (2002). Teaching-Learning Methodology for development of student's performance ability in art.. Art Education Research Review. 15, 205-235.
  38. Iqbal, M. Z., & Chowdhury, S. H. (2007). Using on-campus monitoring wells to enhance student learning in geo-hydrology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(5), 364-370. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-55.5.364
  39. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional Theories and Models(2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. pp. 215-239.
  40. Jhun, Y., & Park, J. (2006). An analysis of the science high-school students' readiness to perform open inquiry tasks in physics, New Physics: Sae Mulli, 52(4), 345-355.
  41. Jung, W., Lee, J., Oh, S (2011). Investigation on the Difficulties During Middle School Students' Finding Inquiry Topics on Open-Inquiry Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1199-1213. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.8.1199
  42. Kim, J. (2016). Hello Data Science. Seoul: Hanbitmedia.
  43. Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Controversial Issues in Knowledge and Problem Solving Skills of Information Subjects Observed after Amending the Curriculum in the U.K. The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 17(3), 54-64.
  44. Kim, K. (2012). Development of social studies lesson for creativity and character education focused on key competencies: problem-solving based on empathic activity. Social studies education, 51(3), 87-101.
  45. Kang, M., (2009). How to Use the Computer in Order to Develop the Mathematical Thinking. Science Education Center Inchon National University of Education, 22(1), 37-54.
  46. Kim, Y. (2018). Data science education program to improve computational thinking and creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in Jeju National University.
  47. Kim, S. (2012). Developing Experimental Method of Real-time Data Transfer and Imaging using Astronomical Observations for Scientific Inquiry Activities. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 33(2), 183-199. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2012.33.2.183
  48. Kim, S. (2015). Design Education based on STEAM Theory and Visual Thinking - focus on design program of Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum. Korea Design Forum, 48, 59-70.
  49. Kim, S., & Kang, S. (2016). Data science leading the 4th industrial revolution. Industrial Engineering Magazine 23(3), 9-13.
  50. Kim, S., Jeoung, J., & Chun, J. (2010). Development and Application of Evaluation Criteria for Free Inquiry Activity Reports of Elementary School Students. Journal of Korean elementary science education, 29(1), 69-85.
  51. Kim, T., Bae, D., & Kim, B. (2002). The Relationships of Graphing Abilities to Logical Thinking and Science Process Skills of Middle School Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(4), 725-739.
  52. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303-323. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029002303
  53. Klucevsek, K. M. (2017). The intersection of information and science literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2017.11.2.7
  54. Krumhansl, R., Peach, C., Foster, J., Busey, A., & Baker, I. (2012). Visualizing oceans of data: Educational interface design. Waltham, MA: Education Development Center, Inc.
  55. Ku, J. (2006). Development and application of earth science inquiry learning material and homepage using on-line real-time data. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education
  56. Kwak, S. (2005). Problem-Solving Model to Improve Scientific Literacy of Youth. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 36(3), 21-38.
  57. Kwon, Y., Kim, W., Lee, H., Byeon, J., & Lee, I. (2011). Analysis of Biology Teachers' Systems Thinking about Ecosystem. Biology Education, 39(4), 529-543. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2011.39.4.529
  58. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  59. Leckie, G. J., & Fullerton, A. (1999). Information literacy in science and engineering undergraduate education: faculty attitudes and pedagogical practices. College and Research Libraries, 60(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.60.1.9
  60. Majetic, C., & Pellegrino, C. (2014). When science and information literacy meet: an approach to exploring the sources of science news with non-science majors. College teaching, 62(3), 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.916650
  61. Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I., & Notz, W. (2006). Statistics: Concepts and controversies. Macmillan.
  62. Neumann, D. L., Hood, M., and Neumann, M. M. (2013). Using real-life data when teaching statistics: student perceptions of this strategy in an introductory statistics course. Statistics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 59-70.
  63. NRC(National Research Council) (1996). National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  64. NRC(National Research Council) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press.
  65. NRC(National Research Council) (2006). Guidelines for the Humane Transportation of Research Animals. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
  66. Qin, J., & D'Ignazio, J. (2010a). Lessons learned from a two-year experience in science data literacy education. In Proceedings the 31st Annual IATUL Conference https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul2010/conf/day2/5/.
  67. Qin, J., & D'Ignazio, J. (2010b). Teaching Metadata as a Key Ingredient in Developing Science Data Literacy. Journal of Library Metadata, 10(2-3), 188-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2010.506379
  68. Rakes, G. C. (1996). Using the Internet as a Tool in a Resource-Based Leatning Environment. Education Edchnology, 36(5), 52-56.
  69. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  70. Robinson, W. R. (2004). The inquiry wheel, an alternative to the scientific method. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6), 791. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p791
  71. Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94
  72. Saltz, J., & Heckman, R. (2016). Big Data science education: A case study of a project-focused introductory course. Themes in science and technology education, 8(2), 85-94.
  73. Seo, W., & Ahn, S. (2019). Development And Applying Detailed Competencies For Elementary School Students' Data Collection, Analysis, and Representation. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 23(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2019.23.2.131
  74. Schield, M. (2004). Information literacy, statistical literacy, data literacy. Iassist Quarterly (IQ), 28(2-3), 6-11. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq790
  75. Schuff, D. (2018). Data science for all: a university-wide course in data literacy. In A. Deokar, A. Gupta, L. Iyer, M. Jones(Eds). Analytics and Data Science. Annals of Information Systems. Springer, Cham. pp. 281-297.
  76. Shim, H., & Ryu, S. (2018). Pre Service Chemistry Teachers' Understanding of Science Practices During Open-inquiry Chemistry Laboratory Activities. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 62(1), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.1.52
  77. Son, M., & Jeong, D. (2018). A Study of Science Teachers' Perception on Knowledge Information Processing Competency. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(5), 693-703. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.5.693
  78. Son, M., Jeong, D., & Son, J. (2018). Analysis of Middle School Students' Difficulties in Science Inquiry Activity in View of Knowledge and Information Processing Competence. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(3), 441-449. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.3.441
  79. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), 490-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10085
  80. Stepien, W. J., Senn, P. R., & Stepien, W. C. (2000). The Internet and problem-based learning: Developing solutions through the web for grades 6-12. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.
  81. Tairab, H. H., & Khalaf Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2004). How do secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs?. Journal of Biological Education, 38(3), 127-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655920
  82. Tyner, K. (2014). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Routledge.
  83. Ucar, S., & Trundle, K. C. (2011). Conducting guided inquiry in science classes using authentic, archived, web-based data. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1571-1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.007
  84. Vahey, P., Rafanan, K., Patton, C., Swan, K., Van't Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Stanford, T. (2012). A cross-disciplinary approach to teaching data literacy and proportionality. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(2), 179-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9392-z
  85. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1033
  86. Wyner, Y. (2013). A case study: Using authentic scientific data for teaching and learning of ecology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 54-60.