Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Interest in Thermal Concepts and the Perceived Task Difficulty on Science State Curiosity

열 개념에 대한 흥미와 학생이 인식하는 과제난이도 수준이 과학상태호기심 유발에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2021.03.11
  • Accepted : 2021.03.21
  • Published : 2021.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to find out how interest in thermal concepts and the perceived difficulty affect the stimulation of science state curiosity. To achieve this purpose, 410 elementary school students in 5th to 6th grade were asked to measure interest in the content of the thermal concept tasks, the perceived difficulty and science state curiosity while solving the thermal concept tasks. 2 (low interest vs. high interest)×2 (easy vs. difficult) ANCOVA was conducted with the covariate of the student's level of science curiosity, which is expected to affect the stimulation of science state curiosity. As a result of the analysis, students with high interest in the contents of the task were showed high science state curiosity. Meanwhile, there was no difference in the level of science state curiosity according to the perceived difficulty. In addition, science state curiosity level of the students with low interest in the content of the task were high when they perceived the task as easy, but science state curiosity level of the students with high interest in the content of the task were high when they perceived the task as difficult. This study was meaningful in that it empirically verified that interest in the content of the tasks has an effect on the stimulation of science state curiosity, and that the effect of interest on the stimulation of science state curiosity varies according to the level of the perceived difficulty.

본 연구의 목적은 열 개념에 대한 흥미와 학생이 인식하는 과제난이도 수준이 과학상태호기심 유발에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 알아보는 것이다. 이를 위해 초등학교 5~6학년 410명을 대상으로 열 개념 과제의 내용에 대한 흥미와 과제를 해결하면서 학생이 인식하는 과제난이도 및 과학상태호기심을 측정하였다. 과학상태호기심 유발에 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상되는 학생의 과학호기심 수준을 공변량으로 하여 2(흥미 낮음 vs 흥미 높음)×2(난이도 쉬움 vs 난이도 어려움) ANCOVA를 실시하였다. 분석 결과, 과제의 내용에 대한 흥미가 높은 학생이 과학상태호기심도 높게 유발되었다. 한편, 학생이 인식하는 과제난이도에 따라 유발되는 과학상태호기심 수준은 차이가 없었다. 그리고 과제의 내용에 대한 흥미가 낮은 학생은 과제를 쉽다고 인식할 경우 과학상태호기심이 높게 유발되었으나, 흥미가 높은 학생은 과제를 어렵다고 인식할 경우 과학상태호기심이 높게 유발되었다. 본 연구는 해당 과제의 내용에 대한 흥미가 과학상태호기심 유발에 영향을 주며, 과제난이도 수준에 따라 흥미가 과학상태호기심 유발에 미치는 영향이 달라진다는 것을 실증적으로 검증하였다는 점에서 의미가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545-561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
  2. Anderson, R. C., Shirey, L., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1987). Interestingness of children's reading material. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Conative and affective process analyses (Vol. 3, pp. 287-299). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. Arkes, H. R. (1979). Competence and the over justification effect. Motivation and Emotion, 3(2), 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01650599
  4. Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9190-9
  5. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.001
  6. Bathgate, M. E., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. (2014). Children's motivation toward science across contexts, manner of interaction, and topic. Science Education, 98(2), 189-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21095
  7. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill.
  8. Boyle, G. J. (1979). Delimitation of state-trait curiosity in relation to state anxiety and learning task performance. Australian Journal of Education, 23(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494417902300109
  9. Boyle, G. J. (1983). Critical review of state-trait curiosity test development. Motivation and Emotion, 7(4), 377-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991647
  10. Brindley, J. (1987). Factors affecting task difficulty. In D. Nunan, (Ed.), Guidelines for the development of curriculum resource (pp. 45-56). National Curriculum Resource Centre.
  11. Clifford, M. M. (1972). Effects of competition as a motivational technique in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312009001123
  12. DeLeeuw, P. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223
  13. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Riverside Press.
  14. Gardner, P. L., & Tamir, P. (1989). Interest in biology. part I: A multidimensional construct. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(5), 409-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260506
  15. Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y
  16. Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). State of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060
  17. Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2011). Principles of physics: Extended 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons.
  18. Haussler, P. (1987). Measuring students' interest in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 19-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069870090109
  19. Henderson, B., & Moore, S. G. (1979). Measuring exploratory behavior in young children: A factor-analytic study. Developmental Psychology, 15(2), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.15.2.113
  20. Henderson, B., Charlesworth, W. R., & Gamradt, J. (1982). Children's exploratory behavior in a novel field setting. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(2), 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(82)90004-8
  21. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549-571. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004549
  22. Hom, Jr. H. L., & Maxwell, F. R. (1983). The impact of task difficulty expectations on intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 7(1), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992962
  23. Honeyfield, J. (1993). Responding to task difficulty. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and practice (pp. 127-138). Regional Language Center.
  24. Im, S., & Pak, S. J. (2000). An analysis of multi-dimension of students' interest in learning physics. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4), 491-504.
  25. Jung, M., & Eom, H. (2011). Understanding and Interpretation of interaction effects in multi-factor ANOVA designs. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 13(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.21797/ksme.2011.13.2.001
  26. Kang, J., & Kim, J. (2020). Analysis of the relationship between familiarity, feeling of knowing, state curiosity, and state anxiety of elementary school students in the thermal task contexts. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 39(3), 433-448. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2020.39.3.433
  27. Kang, J. (2021). Characteristics and learning effects of elementary school students' state curiosity and state anxiety in science learning. Ph. D. thesis, Pusan National University.
  28. Kang, J., Yoo, P., & Kim, J. (2020). The development of instruments for the measuring science state curiosity and anxiety in science learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(5), 485-502. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.5.485
  29. Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T.-Y., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963-973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x
  30. Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011
  31. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  32. Kim, H. J., & Im, S. (2012). An analysis of elementary school students' interest about learning science in informal science education environment. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(1), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2012.31.1.125
  33. Kim, H. J., Lee, J. W., & Im, S. (2013). An analysis of students' interest in high school 'science' in view of the 2009 revised curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.017
  34. Kim, M. K. (2008). Causal relationships among students' attitude, interest, conceptual understanding, and school achievement in secondary physics. Ph. D. thesis, Seoul National University.
  35. Kim, S. (1996). The role of interest in text comprehension. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 8(2), 273-301.
  36. Ko, H. K., & Lee, H. S. (2007). Factors of predicting difficulty of mathematics test items in college scholastic ability test. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 10(1), 113-127.
  37. Koballa, T. R. Jr., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science education. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook for research in science education (pp. 75-102). Erlbaum.
  38. Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Uitto, A., Meisalo, V., & Byman, R. (2005). Attractiveness of science education in the Finnish comprehensive school. In A. Manninen, K. Miettinen & K. Kiviniemi (Eds.), Research findings on young people's perceptions of technology and science education. Mirror results and good practice. Technology Industries of Finland.
  39. Lee, K. H., & Ko, H. K. (2010). A study on cases of difficulty variables in high school mathematics items. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 13(2), 323-343.
  40. Lee, S. H., Lee, B. J., & Son, H. C. (2007). Estimating the regression equations for predicting item difficulty of mathematics in the college scholastic ability test. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education Series A: The Mathematical Education, 46(4), 407-421.
  41. Li, W., Lee, A., & Solmon, M. (2007). The role of perceptions of task difficulty in relation to self-perceptions of ability, intrinsic value, attainment value, and performance. European Physical Education Review, 3(3), 301-318.
  42. Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16
  43. Litman, J. A., Hutchins, T. L., & Russon, R. K. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling of knowing, and exploratory behavior. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 559-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000427
  44. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
  45. Lynch, R., Patten, J. V., & Hennessy, J. (2013). The impact of task difficulty and performance scores on student engagement and progression. Educational Research, 55(3), 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.825165
  46. McGillivray, S., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2015). Thirst for knowledge: The effects of curiosity and interest on memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 30(4), 835-841. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039801
  47. Naylor, F. D. (1981). A state-trait curiosity inventory. Australian Psychologist, 16(2), 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050068108255893
  48. Park, J. S. (2008). The emotional effects of interest-type and deprivation-type of epistemic curiosity: The perfect mediating role of actual self. Master's thesis, Korea University.
  49. Park, M. H. (2004). A study of variables related to item difficulty in college scholastic ability test. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 14(1), 71-88.
  50. Park, T., Eoh, H., Kim, C., & Yun, M. (2000). Relationship between task difficulty and EEG pattern in choice reaction tasks. 대한인간공학회 학술대회논문집, 321-325.
  51. Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1991). Toward a logic of meanings. Erlbaurn.
  52. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27
  53. Ryu, J. (2009). The effects of learner expertise and task difficulty on cognitive load factors and performance. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 15(4), 1-19.
  54. Scasserra, D. (2008). The influence of perceived task difficulty on task performance. Master's thesis, Rowan University.
  55. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 299-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653136
  56. Seong, T. (2019). An easy statistical analysis: From descriptive statistics to structural equation model (3rd Ed.) [알기 쉬운 통계분석(3판)]. Hakjisa.
  57. Shin, D. D., & Kim, S. (2019). Homo curious: Curious of interest? Educational Psychology Review, 31(5), 853-874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09497-x
  58. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38
  59. Spielberger, C. D., Barker, L., Russell, S., Silva de Crane, R., Westberry, L., Knight, J., & Marks, E. (1979). Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). University of South Florida.
  60. Van Velsor, E., & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Our view of leadership development. In C. D. McCauley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The center for creative leadership: Handbook of leadership development (pp. 1-22). Jossey-Bass.
  61. Vygotsky, L. A. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  62. Weible, J. F., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2016). Science curiosity in learning environments: Developing an attitudinal scale for research in schools, homes, museums, and the community. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1235-1255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1186853
  63. Won, H., Son, J. H., & An, H. E. (2012). A study on the mismatch of level of difficulty between teachers and learners in Korean achievement test. Journal of Educational Innovation Research, 22(3), 1-23.
  64. Yang, M. (2008). The effects of task difficulty on learners' attention to meaning and form during focus-on-form instruction. Foreign Languages Education, 15(3), 27-52.
  65. Yoo, J. E. (2013). Misunderstandings and mis-applications on ANCOVA in educational studies. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 13(6), 27-49.