Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Development and Application of MEA(Model-Eliciting Activities) Program Applying the Invention Technique(TRIZ): Focus on Students' Conceptual Change

발명기법(TRIZ)을 적용한 MEA(Model-Eliciting Activities) 프로그램 개발 및 적용 -학생들의 개념 변화를 중심으로-

  • Received : 2021.11.29
  • Accepted : 2022.01.20
  • Published : 2022.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study developed an MEA program to which the invention technique was applied and analyzed the conceptual change of students. The MEA activity applying the invention technique (TRIZ) was composed of the topic of making a paper electric circuit in the section 'Using electricity' presented in the 6th grade textbook. As a way to materialize ideas for problem solving, among the TRIZ techniques, division, integration, multi-purpose, overlapping, subtraction, and converse techniques were extracted and applied. The devised program consists of examining invention techniques (1st session), problem-solving (2nd and 3rd sessions), and expressing the problem-solving process (4th session). As a result of applying to 6th grade elementary school students, it was confirmed that the scientific concept of the experimental group participating in the MEA class to which the invention technique was applied was improved compared to the control group participating in the general class. As a result of calculating the scientific concept improvement index, the control group showed a low educational effect of 0.15, and the experimental group showed an intermediate educational effect of 0.69. This study is meaningful in that it suggests a specific way to graft invention education into science subjects.

본 연구는 발명기법을 적용한 MEA 프로그램을 개발하고 이를 적용하여 학생들의 개념 변화를 분석하였다. 발명기법(TRIZ)을 적용한 MEA 활동은 6학년 교과서에 제시된 '전기의 이용' 단원의 종이 전기회로 만들기 주제를 대상으로 구성하였다. 문제 해결을 위한 아이디어 구체화의 방안으로 TRIZ 기법 중 분할, 통합, 다용도, 포개기, 빼기, 반대로 기법을 추출하여 적용하였다. 개발된 프로그램은 발명기법 알아보기(1차시), 문제 상황 확인 및 문제 해결하기(2, 3차시), 문제 해결 과정 표현하기(4차시)로 구성되어 있다. 초등학교 6학생 학생을 대상으로 적용한 결과, 일반수업에 참여한 비교집단에 비해 발명기법을 적용한 MEA 수업에 참여한 실험집단의 과학적 개념이 향상되었음을 확인하였다. 과학적 개념의 향상지수를 산출한 결과, 비교집단은 0.15의 낮은 교육 효과, 실험집단은 0.69의 중간 교육 효과를 보였다. 본 연구는 과학 교과에서 발명교육을 접목할 수 있는 구체적인 방안을 제시하고 있다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2021년도 특허청(한국발명진흥회)의 지원에 의하여 연구된 것임

References

  1. Altay, M., & Akar, S. (2014). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers' views on model-eliciting. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 345-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.219
  2. Arshad, A., Halim, L., & Nasri, N. (2021). Impact of integrating science and engineering teaching approach on students achievement: A meta analysis. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i2.29839
  3. Chamberlin, S., & Moon, S. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify creatively gifted mathematicians. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-393
  4. Chi, M., Slotta, J., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to process: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5
  5. Choi, S. (2009). Teacher's curriculum development based on students' preconception: Focusing on application of the cognitive conflict process model to electricity unit in elementary school science curriculum. (Master's thesis). Ewha Womans University Graduate School, Seoul.
  6. Cunningham, C., Lachapelle, C., Brennan, R., Kelly, G., Tunis, C., & Gentry, C. (2020). The impact of engineering curriculum design principles on elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(3), 423-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21601
  7. Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::AID-TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M
  8. Gomez-Zwiep, S. (2008). Elementary teachers' understanding of students' science misconceptions: Implications for practice and teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 437-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9102-y
  9. Guzey, S., & Jung, J. (2021). Productive thinking and science learning in design teams. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(2), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10057-x
  10. Ha, S., & Lee, K. (2015). Hermeneutics and science education: Focus on implications for conceptual change theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(1), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2015.35.1.0085
  11. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
  12. Hong, H., Kim, J., Choi, B., & Lee, J. (2012). Conceptual understanding process for electric circuit of elementary science-gifted students using dynamic science assessment. The Korean Society for the Gifted, 22(3), 703-728.
  13. Huh, M., Nam, S., & Lee, J. (2021). Meta-analysis on the effect of elementary invention education. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 27(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.29113/skpaer.2021.27.1.006
  14. Im, J., Lee, S., & Yang, I. (2010). Analysis of elementary school teachers' laboratory instruction process through experiments from science laboratory and engineering laboratory. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(4), 515-525.
  15. Kang, E., & Kim, J. (2020). The effects of experimental activity with computing thinking expression on elementary school students' scientific models. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 70(7), 595-602. https://doi.org/10.3938/npsm.70.595
  16. Kang, E., & Kim, J. (2021). Development of experimental guide materials for algorithmic expression-Focusing on magnetic properties experiment. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 40(3), 326-342. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2021.40.3.326
  17. Khan, M., & Khan, S. (2011). Data and information visualization methods, and interactive mechanisms: A survey. International Journal of Computer Applications, 34(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5120/2004-2701
  18. Kim, H. (2007). Development and verification of the invention education model applied with TRIZ techniques. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 20(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.17055/JPAER.2014.20.4.61
  19. Kim, H. (2020). The effect of 'gravitational acceleration measuring device' inventing education program using arduino's various sensors on science-gifted elementary school students' creative problem solving and attitude towards science. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 20(17), 1101-1122. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2020.20.17.1101
  20. Kim, J., & Moon, S. (2009). Development of practical arts education program for the improvement of elementary school children's interest in the invention using TRIZ method. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 22(1), 93-114.
  21. Kim, M., Kim, D., & Park, J. (2018). Meta-analysis of educational effects in invention education programs. School Science Journal, 12(1), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.12.1.201802.139
  22. Korea Invention Promotion Association (2014). Interesting story of Dr. Tongtong's invention using the TRIZ technique. Korea Invention Promotion Association, Korean Intellectual Property Office.
  23. Korean Intellectual Property Office (2017). Act on the activation and support of invention education(Enacted on March 14, 2017, Act No. 14590).
  24. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K., & Reiser, B. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20240
  25. Kwon, H., & Park, K. (2009). Engineering design: A facilitator for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, Journal of Science Education, 33, 207-219. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2009.33.2.207
  26. Kwon, H., Lee E., & Lee, D. (2016). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of invention education in South Korea: Creativity, attitude, and tendency for problem solving. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(1), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.48
  27. Kwon, J. (1992). How to diagnose for children's misconception of science? Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 173-180.
  28. Lee, B., Shim, K., & Kim, H. (2017). Perception of science educators about invention education in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0017
  29. Lee, C. (2013). Analysis of contents related to the invention in elementary school textbooks according to the 2007 revised curriculum. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 19(3), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.17055/jpaer.2013.19.3.23
  30. Lee, H., & Nam, Y. (2019). Development and application of engineering based engineering.science integrated program for teaching the concept of 'light' and 'sound'. School Science Journal, 13(3), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.13.3.201908.211
  31. Lee, H., Kim, A., & Hong, Y. (2010). 'My creative thermometer' program for the gifted in elementary science. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 14(3), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2010.14.3.453
  32. Lee, H., Kwon, H., Park, G., & Oh, H. (2014). Development and application of integrative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education model based on scientific inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2014.34.2.0063
  33. Lee, J., & Choi, Y. (2010). The development and application effect of IDEAL-TRIZ learning program to improve technological problem-solving capability for elementary school students. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 23(2), 213-233.
  34. Lee, K., Lew, K., & Han, Y. (2016). The effect of DHA-I program based on TRIZ to improve creativity and confluence problem solving ability of lower grade elementary school children. The Journal of Creativity Education, 16(3), 97-111.
  35. Lee, M., & Jeon, J. (2020). Recognition and education needs of the invention education of elementary school teachers. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 26(3), 87-118. https://doi.org/10.29113/skpaer.2020.26.3.005
  36. Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2012). Pedagogical methodology of teaching activity-based flow chart for elementary school students. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 16(4), 489-501.
  37. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  38. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255-281. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20111
  39. Lohse, G., Biolsi, K., Walker, N., & Rueter, H. (1994). A classification of visual representations. Communications of the ACM, 37(12), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1145/198366.198376
  40. Lou, S., Shih, R., Tseng, K., Diez, C., & Tsai, H. (2010). How to promote knowledge transfer through a problem-based learning internet platform for vocational high school students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(5), 539-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.489938
  41. McLure, F., Won, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2020). A sustained multidimensional conceptual change intervention in grade 9 and 10 science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 42(5), 703-721. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1725174
  42. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015a). National practical course/computer and information curriculum No. 2015-74.
  43. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015b). National science curriculum No. 2015-74.
  44. Moon, S., & Kim, O. (2011). The development of an invention education program using the wise life textbook for children's creativity. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 15(2), 333-351. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2011.15.2.333
  45. Moore, T. (2008). Model-eliciting activities: A case-based approach for getting students interested in material science and engineering. Journal of Materials Education, 30(5-6), 295-310.
  46. Mun, K., Hwang, Y., & Yang, D. (2020). Development of science-art integrated program and exploration of conceptual understanding: Focused on light concept for elementary school students. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 24(3), 319-328. https://doi.org/10.24231/RICI.2020.24.3.319
  47. Nesmith, S., & Cooper, S. (2021). Connecting engineering design and inquiry cycles: Impact on elementary preservice teachers' engineering efficacy and perspectives toward teaching engineering. School Science and Mathematics, 121(5), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12469
  48. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
  49. Noh, J., Son, J. Jeon, J. Song, J., & Kim, J. (2019). The effects of step-by-step question-based unit design on elementary school students' understanding of 'seasonal change' concept. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 12(2), 151-164. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2019.12.2.151
  50. Park, J. (2012). A survey of elementary-students' concepts about electric circuits. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 62(8), 848-855. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.62.848
  51. Park, K., & Park, H. (2018). Analysis of research trend on conceptual change in earth science. The Korean Earth Science Society, 39(2), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.2.193
  52. Park, S., & Kim, Y. (2006). Current status and strategy for development of invention education in elementary school-Based at science, practical art and arts subjects. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 19(1), 132-133.
  53. Park, W., & Park, I. (2015). Development of an elementary invention program on the basis of fabricating activity for a simple gravimeter and its application to science classes. Korean Journal of Elementary Education, 26(1), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.20972/kjee.26.1.201503.175
  54. Pintrich, P., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational research, 63(2), 167-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167
  55. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  56. Radloff, J., & Capobianco, B. (2021). Investigating elementary teachers' tensions and mitigating strategies related to integrating engineering design-based science instruction. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9844-x
  57. Reddy, M., & Panacharoensawad, B. (2017). Students problem-solving difficulties and implications in physics: An empirical study on influencing factors. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(14), 59-62.
  58. Roth, W. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1031
  59. Rubaitun, R. (2018). Implementation of model-eliciting activities to improve the ability of mathematical problem-solving. Journal of Innovative Mathematics Learning, 1(3), 312-317. https://doi.org/10.22460/jiml.v1i3.p312-317
  60. Seidman, I. (2009). Interviewing as a qualitative research. NY: Teacgers College Press.
  61. Self, B., Miller, R., Kean, A., Moore, T., Ogletree, T., & Schreiber, F. (2008). Important student misconceptions in mechanics and thermal science: Identification using model-eliciting activities. 38th ASEE/IEEE Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Frontiers in Education Conference.
  62. Seo, S., Jin, S., Jeong, S., & Kwon, J. (2002). Elementary students' cognitive conflict through discussion and physical experience in learning of electric circuit. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(4), 862-871.
  63. Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Some implications for instruction. Physics Education, 23(2), 92. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/23/2/004
  64. Smith, J., Disessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
  65. Smith, K., & Burghardt, D. (2007). Teaching engineering at the K-12 level: Two perspectives. The Technology Teacher, 66(7), 20-24.
  66. Song, J. (2003). Constructivist science education and the map of students' physics misconceptions. The Mathematical Education, 42(2), 87-109.
  67. Son, J., & Kim, J. (2015). Effects of diagnostic and formative assessment using equivalent test on elementary science classes: Focused on the 'earth and moon' unit. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 619-628. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2015.35.4.0619
  68. Son, J., & Lee, B. (2017). Analysis of relevance of Korean and foreign science curricula and invention. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 651-658. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.4.651
  69. Song, J., Kang, S., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., Do, J., Min, B., Park, S., Bae, S., Son, Y., Son, J., Oh, P., Lee, J., Lee, H., Iim, H., Jeong, D., Jong, J., Kim, J., & Joung, Y. (2019). Contents and features of 'Korean Science Education Standards (KSES)' for the next generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 465-478. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.3.465
  70. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills-Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  71. Tsai, C. (2003). Using a conflict map and an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptions in simple series electric-circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145756
  72. Vidic, N., Ozaltin, N., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Shuman, L. (2014). Model eliciting activities motivated problem solving process: Solution path analysis. American Society for Engineering Education, 24.911.1-24.911.19.
  73. Wulandari, A. (2018). Correlation between critical thinking and conceptual understanding of student's learning outcome in mechanics concept. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 020028). AIP Publishing LLC.
  74. Wulandari, A., Agustina, N., Hidayati, Y., & Tsulutsya, F. (2019). Increasing students' problem-solving ability on the pressure concept through model-eliciting activities(MEAs). In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2202, No. 1, p. 020058). AIP Publishing LLC.
  75. Yoon, J., Han, K., & Nam, Y. (2019). An analysis of the characteristics of elementary science gifted students' problem solving through model eliciting activity(MEA). Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 12(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2019.12.1.64
  76. Yu, G., Jeong, J., Kim, Y., & Kim, H. (2018). Qualitative research methods. Seoul: Pakyoungsa.