DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

그림자 원리에 대한 초등 과학 수업 지도안 분석 - 시각적 표상의 유형과 인지 과정을 중심으로 -

Analysis of Elementary Science Lesson Plans on Shadow Principle - Focusing on the Types and Cognitive Processes of Visual Representations -

  • 투고 : 2019.12.29
  • 심사 : 2020.02.12
  • 발행 : 2020.02.29

초록

Visual Representation Competence Taxonomy (VRC-T) was developed in previous study(Yoon, 2018) to provide a framework conducive to assess visual representation competence and to devise appropriate educational activities for it. This study is an extension of the previous study. It aimed to explore the usefulness of VRC-T and revise it by analyzing the patterns of visual representation use in science lessons. The researcher collected lesson plans on shadow principle from 11 pre-service and 13 in-service elementary teachers and conducted individual interviews regarding what visual representations they considered and how they tried to use them in science lessons. VRC-T was used as an analytical framework to examine the types and cognitive processes of visual representations. As a result, new categories were added and the revised VRC-T was completed (VRC-TR). It was also found that both pre- and in-service teachers mainly focused on 'interpreting' the 'descriptive representation' while designing their lesson plans. Additionally, in-service teachers showed more limited use of visual representations compared to pre-service teachers. In-service teachers largely relied on the national science textbooks, while pre-service teachers reflected their own learning experiences in their teacher-training program. These results showed that teachers' use of visual representations heavily relied on their prior learning and teaching experiences. The VRC-TR presented in this study and examples of class activities in each category can be helpful for teachers and researchers who want to use visual representations more effectively.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Abridged edition. New York: Longman.
  2. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
  3. Churches, A. (2010). Bloom's digital taxonomy. Retrieved from http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/f/BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf
  4. Coleman, M. & Smolkin L. (2011). Elementary teachers' use of graphical representations in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 613-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9204-1
  5. Cook, M. (2011). Teachers' use of visual representations in the science classroom. Science Education International, 22(3), 175-184.
  6. Eilam, B. & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). The significance of visual representations in the teaching of science. In Science teachers' use of visual representations (pp. 3-28). Springer International Publishing.
  7. Kim, O.-N. (2006). The comparative analysis of educational taxonomies in cognitive domain. The Korea Educational Review, 12(2), 165-189.
  8. Liu, Y., Won, M. & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Secondary biology teachers' use of different types of diagrams for different purposes. In Science teachers' use of visual representations (pp. 103-121). Springer International Publishing.
  9. Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 revised curriculum: Science. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  10. Ozcelik, A. T. & McDonald, S. P. (2013). Preservice science teachers' uses of inscriptions in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(7), 1103-1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9352-1
  11. Parnafes, O. & Trachtenberg-Maslaton, R. (2014). Transformed instruction: Teaching in a student-generated representations learning environment. In Science teachers' use of visual representations (pp. 271-290). Springer International Publishing.
  12. Scheid, T., Mueller, A., Hettmannsperger, R. & Schnotz, W. (2013). Fostering the understanding of scientific experiments and phenomena through representational analysis tasks. In Constantinou, C. P., Papadouris, N. & Hadjigeorgiou, A. (eds), The Proceedings of 2013 European Science Education Research Association (pp. 102-108). Cyprus, Nicosia.
  13. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F. & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
  14. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Aranda, G., Ferguson, J. & Gorur, R. (2019). Drawing to reason and learn in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21590
  15. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P. & Waldrip, B. (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Sense publisher: Rotterdam.
  16. 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
  17. Yoon, H.-G. (2019). Analysis of elementary school students' visual representation competence for shadow phenomenon. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(2), 295-305. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.2.295
  18. Yoon, H.-G., Jo, K. & Jho, H. (2017). Secondary teachers' perception about and actual use of visual representations in the teaching of electromagnetism. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(2), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0253
  19. Yoon, H.-G. & Park, J. (2018). Elementary school teachers' use of visual representations and their perceptions of the functions of visual representations. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 37(2), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2018.37.2.219