Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Scientific Practices Manifested in Science Textbooks: Middle School Science and High School Integrated Science Textbooks for the 2015 Science Curriculum

과학 교과서에 제시된 과학실천의 빈도와 수준 -2015 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 및 통합과학-

  • Received : 2022.05.25
  • Accepted : 2022.07.26
  • Published : 2022.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzed the frequency and level of scientific practices presented in secondary science textbooks. A total of 1,378 student activities presented in 14 middle school science textbooks and 5 high school integrated science textbooks were analyzed, using the definition and level of scientific practice suggested in the NGSS. Findings show that most student activities focus on three practices. Compared to the textbooks for the previous science curriculum, the practice of 'obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information' was more emphasized, reflecting societal changes due to ICT development. However, the practice of 'asking a question', which can be an important element of student-led science learning, was still rarely found in textbooks, and 'developing and using models', 'using math and computational thinking' and 'arguing based on evidence' were not addressed much. The practices were mostly elementary school level except for the practice of 'constructing explanations'. Such repeated exposures to a few and low level of practices mean that many future citizens would be led to a naïve understanding of science. The findings imply that it is necessary to emphasize various practices tailored to the level of students. In the upcoming revision of the science curriculum, it is necessary to provide the definition of practices that are not currently specified and the expected level of each practice so that the curriculum can provide sufficient guidance for textbook writing. These efforts should be supported by benchmarking of overseas science curriculum and research that explore students' ability and teachers' understanding of scientific practices.

이 연구는 다가오는 2022 개정 과학과 교육과정, 이를 바탕으로 하는 교과서 저술 및 새 교육과정 실행 관련 과학교사 연수에 기초자료를 제공하고자 2015 개정 과학과 교육과정에서 새로이 도입된 8가지 과학 교과의 '기능'의 바탕이 되는 과학실천이 얼마나 어떤 수준으로 교과서에 반영이 되고 있는지 분석하였다. 중학교 검정교과서 14종과 고등학교 통합과학 교과서 5종에 제시된 1,378개의 학생활동을 과학실천의 정의와 수준을 분석틀로 활용하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과 모든 학년의 교과서에서 대부분의 학생 활동이 3개의 실천에 집중된 것으로 밝혀졌고, 이전 교과서 분석 연구 결과와 달리 '정보를 얻고, 평가하고, 소통하기' 실천이 더 많이 강조된 것으로 정보화 사회에 따른 변화를 반영한 것으로 드러났다. 하지만 학생 주도형 과학학습의 중요 요소가 될 수 있는 '질문하기' 실천은 여전히 교과서에서는 거의 찾을 수 없고, 과학실천에 대한 최근의 이해를 반영하는 '모형 개발하고 사용하기', '수학 및 컴퓨팅 사고 사용하기', '증거에 기초하여 논의하기'는 많이 다루어지지 않는 것으로 드러났다. 한편, 교과서에 제시된 실천의 수준은 '설명 구성하기' 실천을 제외하고는 대부분이 초등학교 수준으로 드러났다. 다수의 학생이 중학교 과학과 통합과학 이후 과학을 거의 이수하지 않는다는 점을 고려할 때, 이러한 낮은 수준의 일부 실천에 반복적으로 노출된다는 것은 다수의 미래 시민이 이해하는 과학실천이 일부 활동으로 인식되고, 중학교 이하의 수준에 머무를 수 있음을 암시한다. 이러한 연구 결과로부터 학생 수준에 맞춘 다양한 실천의 강조가 필요하다는 시사점을 도출할 수 있다. 새 교육과정에서는 현재 교육과정 문서에 명시되지 않은 과학적 기능의 정의, 과학적 기능별 학생들에게 기대되는 수준을 제시하여 교육과정이 교과서 저술에 충분한 안내가 될 수 있도록 하는 것이 필요하다. 이러한 노력에는 해외 교육과정에 대한 벤치마킹, 학생들의 실천 능력과 수준을 탐색하는 연구, 교실 수업에서 이루어지는 과학실천에 관한 연구가 뒷받침되어야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., Marino, J.-C., Kademian, S. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Teachers' use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1504-1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016. 1198059
  2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006
  3. Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2022). Science practice- readiness: Novice elementary teachers' developing knowledge of science practices. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21698
  4. Brandwein, P. F., & Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry and Science in the Elementary School. Harvard University Press.
  5. Bruner, J. S. (1999). The Process of Education. Harvard University Press.
  6. Chen, Y., & Terada, T. (2021). Development and validation of an observation-based protocol to measure the eight scientific practices of the next generation science standards in K-12 science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(10), 1489-1526. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21716
  7. Choi, M., & Choi, A. (2016). Analysis of activities in chemistry chapters of middle school science textbooks for the 2009 revised science curriculum: Focus on 8 science practices. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(6), 436-451. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2016.60.6.436
  8. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (2012). The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  10. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1086/591813
  11. Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2020). Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions. Science Education, 104(6), 953-982. https://doi.org/10. 1002/sce.21592 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21592
  12. Gray, R., & Kang, N.-H. (2014). The structure of scientific arguments by secondary science teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 46-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.715779
  13. Jeon, Y. B., & Lee, Y. H. (2020). Analysis of the nature of science (NOS) in Integrated Science textbooks of the 2015 Revised Curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 273-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.21796/jse.2020.44.3.273
  14. Kang, N.-H. (2017). Korean teachers' conceptions of models and modeling in science and science teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0143
  15. Kang, N.-H., & Lee, E. M. (2013). An analysis of inquiry activities in high school physics textbooks for the 2009 revised science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.132
  16. Kang, N.-H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers' use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20013
  17. Ke, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2021). Supporting students' meaningful engagement in scientific modeling through epistemological messages: A case study of contrasting teaching approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 335-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21662
  18. Kim, M., Hong, J., Kim, S.-H., & Lim. C.-S. (2017). Analysis of inquiry activities in the life science chapters of middle school science textbooks: Focusing on science process skills and 8 scientific practice. Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 318-333. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.318
  19. Korean Ministry of Education (2015a). Science Curriculum. Sejong-si, South Korea: Author.
  20. Korean Ministry of Education (2015b). Curriculum Commentary. Sejong-si, South Korea: Author.
  21. Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  22. Lee, J. & Choi, A. (2017). An analysis of 8 scientific practices included in the 2015 revised science curriculum and teaching-learning materials: Focusing on the integrated science. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 17(17), 85-111.
  23. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
  24. Ndumanya, E., Ramnarain, U., & Wu, H.-K. (2021). An analysis of selected south african grade 12 physical sciences textbooks for the inclusion of the NGSS science practices. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21(3), 539-552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00169-z
  25. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The National Academies. https://www.nextgenscience.org/standards/standards
  26. NGSS Lead States. (2016). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (Vol. 2)(N.-H. Kang trans.). KOFAC (Original work published 2013).
  27. Null, W. (2016). Curriculum from Theory to Practice (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
  28. Oh, K., & Kang, N.-H. (2019). Participation patterns of elementary students in scientific problem finding activities. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0039-6
  29. Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (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
  30. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
  31. Park, S., Hwang, S., & Chung, S. (2022). Analysis of science core competencies in the biological diversity unit in accordance with the 2015 Revised Science Curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction Education, 26(1), 1-12.
  32. Park, K., Kang, E., & Kim, J. (2014). The analysis of the aspects of science writing in high school science textbooks based on the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 344-355. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2014.38.2.344
  33. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Song, N., Hong, J., & Noh, T. (2020). Analysis of external representations in matter units of 7 th grade science digital textbooks developed under the 2015 Revised National Curriculum. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 64(6), 416-428. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2020.64.6.416
  35. Song, J. & Na, J. (2015). Directions and issues of 2015 National Science Curriculum and their implications to science classroom culture. School Science Journal, 9(2), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.9.2.201507.72
  36. Yoon, G. M., & 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