한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제41권4호
  • /
  • Pages.642-657
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학 읽기 자료를 이용한 협력적 문제해결 중심 과학 수업이 초등학교 학생들의 과학 읽기 능력에 미치는 영향

Effect of Collaborative Problem-Solving for Competency Instruction Strategy Using Science Reading Text on Elementary Sch ool Students' Science Reading Ability

  • 박지훈 (부산대학교) ;
  • 전재경 (부산대학교) ;
  • 이수진 (부산대학교) ;
  • 남정희 (부산대학교)
  • Park, Jihun (Pusan National University) ;
  • Jun, Jaekyoung (Pusan National University) ;
  • Lee, Sujin (Pusan National University) ;
  • Nam, Jeonghee (Pusan National University)
  • 투고 : 2022.08.05
  • 심사 : 2022.10.07
  • 발행 : 2022.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 과학 읽기 자료를 이용한 협력적 문제해결 중심 과학 수업이 초등학교 학생들의 과학 읽기 능력에 미치는 영향을 알아보는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 연구 대상은 초등학교 5학년으로 실험집단은 과학 읽기 자료를 이용한 협력적 문제해결 중심 과학 수업을 실시하였고 비교집단은 교과서에 바탕을 둔 과학 수업을 실시하였으며 과학 읽기 능력 검사지, 모둠별 논의과정 녹음본과 수업 녹화본을 수집하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 과학 읽기 자료를 이용한 협력적 문제해결 중심 과학 수업은 초등학교 학생들의 과학 읽기 능력의 향상에 효과가 있었다. 과학 읽기 능력 검사 결과, 총점 및 3개 하위 요소 모두에서 실험집단은 비교집단보다 통계적으로 유의미하게 높게 나타났으며, 특히 높은 수준의 인지 과정에 속하는 '성찰 및 평가'와 '통합 및 해석'이 큰 비율로 증가하였다. 학생들은 이 수업에서 교사가 제시한 자료를 읽고 읽은 내용을 바탕으로 논의에 참여하며, 읽은 내용과 읽기 과정에 대한 반성을 하게 된다. 이러한 과정에서 학생들의 과학 읽기 능력이 향상된 것으로 보인다.

This study aimed to investigate how elementary school students' science reading ability is influenced by collaborative problem-solving for competency instruction strategy using science reading text. This study recruited two groups of elementary students in fifth grade. The experimental group underwent an instruction strategy using science reading text, while the comparative group experienced a science class using a textbook. Afterward, data from the science reading ability tests, voice recordings of the discussion process involving each group, and class videos were collected and analyzed. The results showed that science classes that used collaborative problem-solving for their competency instruction strategy via science reading text were effective in enhancing elementary school students' science reading ability. Meanwhile, the science reading ability test results indicated that the experimental group had statistically higher total scores than the comparative group in the three subelements, especially "introspection and evaluation" and "integration and interpretation" owing to their significant improvement in high-level cognitive processes. In these classes, the students read the materials that the teacher provided, participated in the discussion based on what they have read, and had the chance to reflect on their reading processes. Overall, students' science reading ability was enhanced through this process.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Alvermann, D. E., Swafford, J., & Montero, M. K. (2004). Content Area Literacy Instruction for the Elementary Grades. NJ: Pearson.
  2. Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1683-1707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802380695
  3. Barton, M. L., & Jordan, D. L. (2001). Teaching reading in science: A supplement to "Teaching reading in the content areas teacher's manual". VA: ASCD.
  4. Bulman, L. (1985). Teaching Language and Study Skills in Secondary Science. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
  5. Cho, H., Kwon, D., Kang, E., Park, J., Son, J., & Nam, J. (2018). Impacts of Collaborative Problem Solving for Character Competency (CoProC) Strategy on the Practical Character Competency and Collaborative Problem Solving Competency in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(5), 681-691. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.5.681
  6. Davis, F., & Greene, T. (1984). Reading for Learning in the Sciences. Edinburgh:Oliver and Boyd.
  7. Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
  8. Gomez, K., Kwon, S., Gomez, L., & Sherer, J. (2014). Supporting reading to learn inscience: The Application of Summarization technology in multicultural urbanhigh school classrooms. Chapter 7. In R. Bloymeyer, T. Ganesh, & H. Waxman (Eds.), Research on technology in multicultural settings (pp. 139-158). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publications
  9. Jacobson, J. M. (1998). Content Area Reading: Integration with the Language Arts. NY: Delmar Publishers.
  10. Jun, J., Park, J., Cho, H., Ki m, G., Park, J., & Nam, J. (2021). The Effects of Collaborative Problem-solving for Character Competence (CoProC) Instruction Strategy on Character Competence of Elementary School Students. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 25(6), 496-509. https://doi.org/10.24231/RICI.2021.25.6.496
  11. Kang, S., Park, J., & Nam, J. (2021). The Impact of Science Classes Applying Collaborative Problem solving for Character Competency (CoProC) on the Character Competence and Scientific Affective Characteristics of Vocational High School Students. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 65(6), 468-483. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2021.65.6.468
  12. Kim, N., Lee, D., & Choi, H. (2017). Investigations on Techniques and Applications of Text Analytics. The Journal of Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences, 42(2), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.7840/kics.2017.42.2.471
  13. Korea Institute Of Curriculum & Evaluation (2013). OECD programme for international students assessment: Analyzing PISA 2012 results (Report No. RRE 2013-6-1). Chungbuk: KICE.
  14. Korea Institute Of Curriculum & Evaluation (2015). Toward the enhancement of reading competency in the digital era focused on elementary school students (Report No. RRC 2015-5). Chungbuk: KICE.
  15. Korea Institute Of Curriculum & Evaluation (2021). 교과교육과정 및 독서교육 정책 분석을 통한 학교 독서교육 체계화 방안 연구 (Report No. ORM 2021-40-9). Chungbuk: KICE.
  16. Korea Institute Of Curriculum & Evaluation. (2016). OECD programme for international student assessment: establishing a foundation of PISA 2018 field trial (Report No. RRC 2016-2-1). Chungbuk: KICE.
  17. Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, et al. (Eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality. NY: Wiley
  18. Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20965918
  19. Kwon, C., & Cho, H. (2011). Comparative Analysis of System and Contents in the Elementary Science Textbooks of Korea and Finland. The Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 4(2), 143-141.
  20. Kwon, J., & Nam, J. (2017). Impact of Collaborative Problem-Solving Instruction Model on Character Competence of High School Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(5), 847-857. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.5.847
  21. Lee, C., & Kwon, C. (2013). Comparison of Illustrations of Elementary Science Textbooks in Korea and Singapore. The Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 6(1), 13-19.
  22. Lee, J., Maeng, S., Ki m, H., & Ki m, C. (2007). The systemic functional linguistics analysis of texts in elementary science textbooks by curriculum revision. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(3), 242-252.
  23. Lee, K., & Maeng, S. (2022). Grammatical analysis on the language of explanatory texts in elementary science textbooks. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 25(1), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2022.25.1.103
  24. Lee, S., Park, S., & Kim, J. (2017). A study on the methods to improve hangul literacy of primary school entrants. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 2(3), 1-24.
  25. Lorch, R. F.(2015). What about Expository Text?. Inferences During Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, D. R. (1997). Teaching through Text: A Content Literacy approach to Content Area Reading (2nd ed). NY: Longman.
  27. Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 Revised National Curriculum. Ministry of Education.
  28. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  29. OECD (2000). OECD annual report 2000. OECD Publishing.
  30. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do - Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I). OECD Publishing.
  31. OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What makes schools successful? - Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV). OECD Publishing.
  32. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results: What students know and can do (Vol.I). OECD Publishing.
  33. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
  34. Park, H. (2016). International comparative analysis on characteristics of Korean students' reading achievements in PISA 2012 results. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 19(3), 101-125. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2016.19.3.101
  35. Park, S. (2003). Reading strategies and reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Research, 9, 117-145.
  36. Raphael, T., George, M., Weber, C., & Nies, A. (2009). Approaches to teaching reading comprehension. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension. (pp. 449-469). NY: Routledge.
  37. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). "What's all the fuss about metacognition?". In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  38. Son, J. (2013). An analysis of narrative text described in high school science textbooks: Energy related content. Journal of Energy and Climate Change Education, 3(1), 33-46.
  39. Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2008). Content Area Reading. NY: Pearson.
  40. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the "third space". Science Education, 88, 901-914. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20024
  41. Waltz, C. F., & Bausell, R. B. (1981). Nursing Research: Design, Statistics, and Computer Analysis. PA: FA Davis company.
  42. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  43. Yoon, G., & Hong, Y. (2021). A study on vocabulary and sentence level through readability analysis of 2015 revised elementary science textbook. Journal of Science Education, 45(3), 317-325. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2021.45.3.317