대한지구과학교육학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education)

  • 제14권1호
  • /
  • Pages.1-20
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2005-5668(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2289-0386(eISSN)
대한지구과학교육학회 (The Korean Society of Earth Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

야외지질답사와 과학적 모델링에서 중학생들의 표상적 능력에 관한 이해

Understanding of Middle School Students' Representational Competence in Learning in Geological Field Trip with Scientific Modeling

  • Choi, Yoon-Sung (Department of Earth Science Education, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2021.01.09
  • 심사 : 2021.04.26
  • 발행 : 2021.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 과학적 모델을 적용한 두 차례 야외지질학습(관악산과 한탄강 형성과정)에서 학생들이 보여주는 표상적 능력에 대한 이해를 목적으로 하였다. 수도권 소재 대학부설 영재원 10명의 학생들이 자발적으로 참여하였다. 야외학습환경과 교실학습환경에서 학생들이 작성한 서면 자료, 수업 과정에 대한 모든 영상녹음 및 음성 녹음 자료, 수업 종료 후 면담 자료를 수집하였다. 표상적 능력 수준을 구분하는 분석틀로 학생들의 표상 능력의 단계를 구분하고 과학적 모델 형성 과정에서 표상적 능력의 수준과 최종모델과의 결과론적인 해석을 덧붙였다. 그 결과 학생들의 표상적 능력은 1~6수준까지 다양하게 나타났다. 다만, 학생들은 야외학습환경에서 교실학습환경보다 상대적으로 낮은 수준의 표상적 능력을 보였다. 즉, 야외학습환경에서 상대적으로 낮은 수준의 표상적 능력으로부터 시작되어 교실학습환경에서 학생들이 표상적 능력의 수준을 높인 것을 결과론적으로 보였다. 궁극적으로 학생들의 표상적 능력을 이해하는 것은 과학적 모델 형성과정에서 현상을 설명하기 위한 도구로써 학술적인 의미를 지녔다.

The purpose of this study was to understand students' representational competence while they engaged in learning in geological field trips with scientific models and modeling(Mt. Gwanak and the Hantan-river were formed). Ten students agreed to participate in this study voluntarily. They were attending the Institute of Gifted Education in the Seoul Metropolitan area. The data were collected for all students' activities during field trips and modeling activities using simultaneous video and voice recording, the interview after classes, written data(note) made by the students. The analysis framework that distinguished levels of representational competence and added the resulting interpretation with the final models in the process of scientific models. Results suggested that representational competence levels varied from one to six. However, students showed relatively low levels of representational competence in outdoor learning environments than indoor learning environments. In other words, it began with a relatively low level of representational competence in outdoor class. Then students developed a higher level of representational competence indoor class. Ultimately, we need to understand students' representational competence implies a tool to explain phenomena in the process of modeling activities.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 교육부(2015). 개정 과학과 교육과정. 교육부 고시 제2015-74 호.
  2. 최윤성, 김찬종(2020). 한탄강 국가지질공원을 활용한 과학적 모델 및 모델링의 야외지질학습 적용. 한국현장과학교육학회지, 14(2), 175-192.
  3. 최윤성, 김찬종, 최승언(2018). 과학적 모델의 사회적 구성을 활용한 야외지질학습 개발 및 적용. 한국지구과학회지, 39(2), 178-192. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.2.178
  4. Anderson, K., & Leinhardt, G. (2002). Maps as representations: Expert novice comparison of projection understanding. Cognition and Instruction, 20(3), 283-321. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2003_1
  5. Anderson, T., Schonborn, K., Du Plessis, L., Gupthar, A., & Hull, T. (2013). Identifying and developing students' ability to reason with concepts and representations in biology. In Multiple Representations in Biological Education (pp. 19-38). Springer, Dordrecht.
  6. Baetu, T. (2014). Models and the mosaic of scientific knowledge. The case of immunology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 45, 49-56.
  7. Bodner, G., & Guay, R. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), 1-17.
  8. Botzer, G., & Reiner, M. (2005). Imagery in physics learning-from physicists' practice to naive students' understanding. In Visualization in science education (pp. 147-168). Springer, Dordrecht.
  9. Brandstetter, T. (2011). Time machines: Model experiments in geology. Centaurus, 53(2), 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.2011.00216.x
  10. Chamizo, J. (2013). A new definition of models and modeling in chemistry's teaching. Science & Education, 22(7), 1613-1632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9407-7
  11. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(81)80029-8
  12. Clement, J., Zietsman, A., & Monaghan, J. (2005). Imagery in science learning in students and experts. In Visualization in science education (pp. 169-184). Springer, Dordrecht.
  13. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x
  14. Cook, M. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164
  15. Cuoco, A., & Curcio, F. (Eds.) (2001). The roles of representation in school mathematics. National Council of Teachers.
  16. Daniel, K., Bucklin, C., Leone, E., & Idema, J. (2018). Towards a definition of representational competence. In Towards a framework for representational competence in science education (pp. 3-11). Springer, Cham.
  17. DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
  18. Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students' understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1227-1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000038231
  19. Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In visualization in science education (pp. 9-27). Springer, Dordrecht.
  20. Gilbert, J., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200106
  21. Graveleau, F., Malavieille, J., & Dominguez, S. (2012). Experimental modelling of orogenic wedges: A review. Tectonophysics, 538, 1-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.01.027
  22. Gross, D., & Walter, M. (2013). Stabilizer information inequalities from phase space distributions. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(8), 082201. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4818950
  23. Hackling, M., & Lawrence, J. (1988). Expert and novice solutions of genetic pedigree problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(7), 531-546. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250703
  24. Halverson, K. (2011). Improving tree-thinking one learnable skill at a time. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(1), 95-106.
  25. Halverson, K., & Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Learning tree thinking: Developing a new framework of representational competence. In Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 185-201). Springer, Dordrecht.
  26. Harle, M., & Towns, M. (2012). Students' understanding of external representations of the potassium ion channel protein part II: Structure-function relationships and fragmented knowledge. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(6), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20620
  27. Harle, M., & Towns, M. (2013). Students' understanding of primary and secondary protein structure: Drawing secondary protein structure reveals student understanding better than simple recognition of structures. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(6), 369-376. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20719
  28. Jee, B., Uttal, D., Gentner, D., Manduca, C., Shipley, T., Tikoff, B., Ormand, C., & Sageman, B. (2010). Commentary: Analogical thinking in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3544291
  29. Koponen, I., & Tala, S. (2014). Generative modelling in physics and in physics education: From aspects of research practices to suggestions for education. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1143-1169). Springer, Dordrecht.
  30. Kozma, R., & Russel, J. (2007). Representational competence's profile of pre-service chemistry teachers in chemical problem solving in science and science education. In Visualization in science education (pp. 9-27). Springer, Dordrecht.
  31. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representation competence. In Visualization in science education (pp. 121-145). Springer, Dordrecht.
  32. Laugksch, R. (2000), Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C
  33. Louca, L., & Zacharia, Z. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
  34. Mathewson, J. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199901)83:1<33::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Z
  35. Matuk, C. (2007). Images of evolution. The Journal of Biocommunication, 33(3), E54-E61.
  36. Meier, B., Hauser, D., Robinson, M., Friesen, C., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What's up with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 699. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.699
  37. Meyer, M. (2001). Representation in realistic mathematics education. The roles of representation in school mathematics, 2001. Reston: National Council of Teacher in Mathematics, pp. 238-250.
  38. Mishra, C., Clase, K., Bucklin, C., & Daniel, K. (2018). Improving students' representational competence through a course-based undergraduate research experience. In Towards a framework for representational competence in science education (pp. 177-201). Springer, Cham.
  39. Morgan, M., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 347.
  40. Nersessian, N. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5-22). Springer, Boston, MA.
  41. Oh, P., & Oh, S. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191
  42. Oreskes, N. (2007). From scaling to simulation: Changing meanings and ambitions of models in geology. Duke University Press, pp. 93-124.
  43. Patrick, M., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E. (2005). Visual representations of DNA replication: Middle grades students' perceptions and interpretations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 353-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7200-6
  44. Penner, D. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X025001001
  45. Reiner, M. (2008). Seeing through touch: The role of haptic information in visualization. In Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 73-84). Springer, Dordrecht.
  46. Reiss, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. (2001). Students' understandings of their internal structure as revealed by drawings. In Research in science education-Past, Present, and Future (pp. 101-106). Springer, Dordrecht.
  47. Roth, W., Bowen, G., & McGinn, M. (1999). Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977-1019. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<977::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-V
  48. Takayama, K. (2005). Visualizing the science of genomics. In Visualization in science education (pp. 217-251). Springer, Dordrecht.
  49. Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual literacy and science communication. Science Communication, 20(4), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547099020004004
  50. Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. (2013). Introduction to multiple representations: Their importance in biology and biological education. In Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 3-18). Springer, Dordrecht.
  51. Ubben, I., Nitz, S., Daniel, K., & Zu Belzen, A. (2018). Assessing representational competence with eye tracking technology. In Towards a framework for representational competence in science education (pp. 229-245). Springer, Cham.
  52. Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Kruger, D. (2010). Model competence in biology class. Journal of Teaching Methods on Natural Sciences, 16, 41-57.
  53. Van Borkulo, S., Van Joolingen, W., Savelsbergh, E., & De Jong, T. (2009). A framework for the assessment of learning by modeling. In Model-based approaches to learning (pp. 179-195). Brill Sense.
  54. Van Joolingen, W., Aukes, A., Gijlers, H., & Bollen, L. (2015). Understanding elementary astronomy by making drawing-based models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 256-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9540-6
  55. Van Lehn, K., Wetzel, J., Grover, S., & Van De Sande, B. (2016). Learning how to construct models of dynamic systems: An initial evaluation of the dragoon intelligent tutoring system. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(2), 154-167. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2514422
  56. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
  57. Woleck, K. (2001). Listen to their pictures: An investigation of children's mathematical drawings. Reston, Yearbook National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 215-227.
  58. Yore, L., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9160-y
  59. Zazkis, R., & Liljedahl, P. (2004). Understanding primes: The role of representation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3), 164-186. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034911
  60. Zbiek, R., Heid, M., Blume, G., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 2, 1169-1207.