Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring the Relationships between Inquiry Problems and Scientific Reasoning in the Program Emphasized Construction of Problem: Focus on Inquiry About Osmosis

문제의 구성을 강조한 프로그램에서 나타난 탐구 문제와 과학적 추론의 관련성 탐색 -삼투 현상 탐구 활동을 중심으로-

  • Baek, Jongho (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation)
  • Received : 2020.01.21
  • Accepted : 2020.02.29
  • Published : 2020.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Scientific inquiry has emphasized its importance in various aspects of science learning and has been performed according to various methods and purposes. Among the various aspects of science learning, it is emphasized to develop core competencies with science, such as scientific thinking. Therefore, it is necessary to support students to be able to formulate scientific reasoning properly. This study attempts to explore problem-finding and scientific reasoning in the process of performing scientific inquiry. This study also aims to reveal what factors influence this complex process. For this purpose, this study analyzed the inquiry process and results performed by two groups of college students who conducted the inquiry related to osmosis. To analyze, research plans, presentations, and group interviews were used. As a result, it was found that participants used various scientific reasoning, such as deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning, in the process of problem finding for their inquiry about osmosis. In the process of inquiry and reasoning complexly, anomalous data, which appear regularly, and the characteristics of experimental instruments influenced their reasoning. Various reasons were produced for the purpose of constructing the best explanation about the phenomena observed by participants themselves. Finally, based on the results of this study, several implications for the development context of programs using scientific inquiry are discussed.

과학 탐구는 과학에 대한 다양한 학습의 차원에서 그 중요성이 강조되고, 다양한 방법과 목적에 따라 운영되었다. 과학 학습에 대한 다양한 측면 중 과학적 사고력과 같은 과학과의 중요 역량 함양이 강조되고 있다. 따라서 과학적 추론이 적절하게 일어날 수 있도록 안내할 필요가 있다. 이 연구는 학습자들이 과학적 탐구를 진행하는 과정 중, 탐구 문제의 발견과 구성 과정에서 드러내는 과학적 추론을 살펴보고 그 의미를 탐색하고자 하였다. 또한 어떠한 요인이 이 복잡한 과정에 영향을 끼치는지 살펴보고자 하였다. 이러한 목적에 따라 '삼투 현상' 관련 탐구를 수행한 대학생 2개 모둠의 탐구 과정과 결과를 분석하였다. 연구 참여자들의 탐구 계획서 및 발표 자료, 모둠 별 면담을 분석하였다. 그 결과, 이들은 '삼투 현상'에 대한 자신들의 탐구 문제를 구성하고 진행하는 과정에서 연역, 귀납, 귀추의 추론방식을 다양하게 활용하는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 탐구와 추론이 역동적으로 이루어지는 과정에서 규칙적인 변칙 사례와 실험 도구의 특징이 이들의 추론에 영향을 끼침을 살펴보았다. 다양한 추론들은 참여자들 스스로 관찰한 현상에 대해 최선의 설명을 구성하는 것을 목적으로 탐구를 지속하는 중에 이루어졌다. 끝으로 이 연구의 결과를 바탕으로 과학 탐구를 기반으로 삼는 프로그램들의 개발 맥락에 대해 제공하는 몇 가지 시사점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-219. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  2. DeBoer, G. E. (2006). Historical perspective on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 17-35). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  3. Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62(4), 509-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730620411
  4. Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860-877. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1036
  5. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  6. Jeong, J. I., & Jang, N. H. (2018), Comparative analysis of the description of osmosis in Korean and American high school chemistry textbooks. Teacher Education Research, 57(4), 539-548. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.57.4.201812.539
  7. Jeong, J.-S. (2006). Role of hypothesizing abduction in high school students' generation of hypotheses about root-pressure. The Korean Journal of Biological Education, 34(3), 405-414.
  8. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613
  9. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02300500
  10. Joung, Y. J., & Song, J. (2006). The features of the hypotheses generated by pre-service elementary teachers using the form of Peirce's abduction. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 25(2), 126-140.
  11. Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory-Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527-2558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.550952
  12. Kim, D. H. (2017). The effects on particulate concept formation based on abductive reasoning model for elementary science class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0025
  13. Kim, H., Kin, Y., Kim, D., & Wee, S. M. (2018). The case study of strategies for abductive reasoning in the process of solving earth science inquiry questions for middle school students. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(15), 799-820.
  14. Kim, J. H., Kim, J. W., Park, C. K., & Paik, S. H. (2006). Development of particle-level computer assisted instruction materials for the 'solution' chapter in high school chemistry textbook and analysis of the educational effects. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(2), 163-177. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.2.163
  15. Kim, Y., & Kim. Y. (2008). Newton's scientific problem finding and abductive reasoning in his discovery of the light and color theory. Sae Mulli, 53(3), 162-170.
  16. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  17. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar. S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by designTM into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
  18. LaBanca, F. (2008). Impact of problem finding on the quality of authentic open inquiry science research projects. Doctoral Thesis. Western Connecticut State University. UMI Number: 3411366.
  19. Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge? and what does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education, 9, 577-598. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008756715517
  20. Lee, S. K., Choi, C. I., Lee, G., Shin, M. K., & Song, H. (2013). Exploring scientific reasoning in elementary science classroom discourses. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.181
  21. Lee, S. Y., Kim, S. H., & Paik, S. H. (2010). A case study of chemistry major pre-service teacher's understanding about the properties of dilute solutions and perception on teacher education curriculum. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(6), 787-798. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.6.787
  22. Lim, O. K., & Kim, H. N. (2018). Scientific reasoning differences in science writing of elementary school students by grades. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(6), 839-851. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.6.839
  23. Lim, S. C., Kim, J. H., & Jeong, J. W. (2013). Analysis of the scientific reasoning ability of science-gifted 2nd middle school students in open-Inquiry activities. Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2013.37.2.323
  24. Lipton, P. (2004) Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  25. Maeng, S. H., Park, M., Lee, J. A., & Kim, C. J. (2007). A case study of middle school students' abductive inference during a geological field excursion. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 818-831.
  26. Ministry of Education(MOE) (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
  27. National Research Council(NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  28. Noh, T., Yun, J., Kang, H., & Kang, S. (2006). A comparison of scientists' and students' responses to discrepant event and alternative hypothesis in the conceptual change processes from the phlogiston theory to the oxygen theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(7), 798-804.
  29. Oh, P. S. (2016). Roles of models in abductive reasoning: A schematization through theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 551-516. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0551
  30. Oh, P. S. (2017a). The roles and importance of critical evidence (CE) and critical resource models (CRMs) in abductive reasoning for earth scientific problem solving. Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 426-446. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.426
  31. Oh, P. S. (2017b). An interpretation of modeling-based elementary science lessons from a perspective of distributed cognition. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 36(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.1.016
  32. Park, J. (2000). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis-Focused on the definition and the characteristics of scientific hypothesis -. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4), 667-679.
  33. Runco, M. A. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Ablex Pub. Corp.
  34. Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. (2000). Towards a taxonomy of problems used in problem-based learning curricula. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11(2/3), 57-72.
  35. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science (pp. 1-104). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  36. Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 331-355). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  37. 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
  38. Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., JohnsonGlenberg, M., Kelliher, A., & Martinez, C. (2009). Teaching and learning in the mixed-reality science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 501-517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9166-2
  39. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995-1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057006009
  40. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
  41. Yun, H., & Kim, H.-B. (2018). Exploring science high school students' epistemic goals, epistemic considerations and complexity of reasoning in open inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 541-533. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.4.541
  42. Yoon, H. G., & Pak, S. J. (2000). The change of middle school students' motivation for investigation through the extended science investigations. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(1), 137-154.