한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제42권4호
  • /
  • Pages.477-486
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학적 실행 기반의 과학 교육에서 개념 학습의 가능성 고찰 -상황 학습 이론과 개념적 행위 주체성을 중심으로-

Possibility of Science Concept Learning in Scientific Practice-Based Science Education: A Review Focused on Situated Learning Theories and Conceptual Agency

  • 투고 : 2022.06.15
  • 심사 : 2022.08.30
  • 발행 : 2022.08.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 상황 학습 이론과 실행 기반의 과학 교육에 관한 문헌들에 대한 고찰을 통해 과학적 실행 중심의 수업에서 과학 개념학습의 가능성을 살펴보았다. 먼저, 상황 학습 이론이 학생들의 과학적 실행에의 참여를 강조하는 최근 과학 교육 개혁의 흐름과 관련이 깊으며, 상황 학습의 관점에서 개념 학습은 학습자가 개념을 자원으로 활용하며 실행에 참여하는 동안 개념적 행위 주체성을 발현하여 개념을 지속적으로 발전시키는 과정을 통해 이루어진다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 또, 이러한 상황 학습 이론은 과학적 실행 기반의 수업에서 과학 개념을 학습하는 데에도 적용된다는 것을 확인하였다. 즉, 과학적 실행 중심의 과학 수업에서는 과학 개념이 자원으로 활용되며, 과학 개념을 자원으로 활용하는 동안 학생들은 과학적 실행에 더 잘 참여할 수 있고, 과학적 실천에의 참여는 개념적 행위 주체성의 발현을 통해 개념 학습을 더욱 촉진할 수 있다. 이러한 고찰의 내용이 학교 과학 교육에 주는 시사점을 논의하였다.

This study explored a possibility of science concept learning in scientific practice-based science instruction through the review of literature about situated learning theories and practice-based science education. It was revealed that the situated learning theories were closely related to the recent trend in science education which emphasizes students' active engagement in scientific practices. From the perspective of situated learning, concept learning occurs in the process in which learners make use of concepts as resources and further develop the concepts through the emergence of conceptual agency during their participation in practices. The study also found that the situated learning perspectives could apply to science concept learning in scientific practice-based instruction: Science concepts are used as resources in practice-based science learning, students can better engage in scientific practices as they take advantage of science concepts as resources, and the emergence of conceptual agency can facilitate science concept learning during the participation in scientific practices. Implications for school science education were suggested.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035-1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
  2. Aleong, R. J., & Adams, R. (2020, June). A situative understanding of the NGSS science and engineering practices. Paper presented at 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference.
  3. Arnseth, H. C. (2008). Activity theory and situated learning theory: Contrasting views of educational practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 16(3), 289-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360802346663
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  5. Barth-Cohen, L. A., & Braden, S. H. (in press). Unpacking the complexity in learning to observe in field geology. Cognition and Instruction.
  6. Bateman, K., Wilson, C. G., Williams, R., & Tikoff, B., & Shipley, T. F. (in press). Explicit instruction of scientific uncertainty in an undergraduate geoscience field-based course. Science & Education.
  7. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building, and elementary science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 97(4), 329-340.
  8. Bliss, J. (1995). Piaget and after: The case of learning science. Studies in Science Education, 25, 139-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269508560052
  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
  10. Chang, H. (2011). The philosophical grammar of scientific practice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(3), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2011.605244
  11. Chang, H. (2012). Is water H2O? Evidence, realism and pluralism. New York, NY: Springer.
  12. Chang, H. (2014). Epistemic activities and systems of practice: Unit of analysis in philosophy of science after the practice turn. In L. Soler, S. Zwart, M. Lynch & V. Israel-Jost (Eds.), Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science (pp. 67-79). New York, NY: Routledge.
  13. Chen, Y.-C. (2022). Epistemic uncertainty and the support of productive struggle during scientific modeling for knowledge co-development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59, 383-422. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21732
  14. Chen, Y.-C., & Qiao, X. (2020). Using students' epistemic uncertainty as a pedagogical resource to develop knowledge in argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2145-2180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1813349
  15. Cheng, M.-F., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed explanatory models: The importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2367-2392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903575755
  16. Cho, H., & Shon, M. (2015). When learning by practice could be situated learning: Exploring implications for contextual instructional design. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 201-226.
  17. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933
  18. Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the biologist's world. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325899
  19. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
  20. Eylon, B.-S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251-301. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058003251
  21. Ford, D. J. (2005). The challenges of observing geologically: Third graders' descriptions of rock and mineral properties. Science Education, 89(2), 276-295. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20049
  22. Froyland, M., Remmen, K. B., & Sorvik, G. O. (2016). Namedropping or understanding? Teaching to observe geologically. Science Education, 100(5), 923-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21232
  23. Greeno, J. G. (1995). Understanding concepts in activity. In C. A. Weaver III, S. Mannes, & C. R. Feltcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 65-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026001005
  25. Greeno, J. G. (2006) Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537-547. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_4
  26. Greeno, J. G. (2012). Concepts in activities and discourses. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19, 310-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2012.691934
  27. Greeno, J. G., & Engestrom, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 128-147). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Greeno, J. G., & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group (MMAP) (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
  29. Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520709336915
  30. Hall, R., & Greeno, J. G. (2008). Conceptual learning. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 212-221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  31. Kawasaki, J., & Sandoval, W. A. (2019). The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 906-922. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1657765
  32. Kawasaki, J., & Sandoval, W. A. (2020). Examining teachers' classroom strategies to understand their goals for student learning around the science practices in the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(4), 384-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2019.1709726
  33. Kim, M., & Tan, A.-L. (2011). Rethinking difficulties of teaching inquiry- based practical work: Stories from elementary pre-service teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 465-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003639913
  34. Konicek-Moran, R., & Keeley, P. (2015). Teaching for conceptual understanding in science. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  35. Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  36. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0303_2
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Manz, E. (2012). Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Science Education, 96, 1071-1105. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21030
  39. Manz, E. (2015). Resistance and the development of scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 33(2), 89-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.1000490
  40. Manz, E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2020). Rethinking the classroom science investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148-1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21625
  41. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93-127. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065002093
  42. Miller, E. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). Promoting deep learning through project-based learning: A design problem. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0009-6
  43. Moore, C. (2019). Creating scientists: Teaching and assessing science practice for the NGSS. New York, NY: Routledge.
  44. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  45. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
  46. Nordine, J., Krajcik, J., Fortus, D., & Neumann, K. (2019). Using storylines to support three-dimensional learning in project-based instruction. Science Scope, 42(6), 86-92.
  47. Nordine, J., & Lee, O. (2021). Crosscutting concepts: Strengthening science and engineering learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  48. Novak, J. D. (2005). Results and implications of a 12-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 35, 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3431-4
  49. Oh, P. S. (2006). Participation metaphor for learning and its implication for science teaching and learning. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 27(2), 140-148.
  50. Oh, P. S. (2015). A theoretical review and trial application of the 'resourcesbased view' (RBV) as an alternative cognitive theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 971-984. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2015.35.6.0971
  51. Oh, P. S. (2020). A critical review of the skill-based approach to scientific inquiry in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(2), 141-150. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.2.141
  52. Oh, P. S. (in press). How a student uses knowledge as a resource to solve scientific problems: A case study on science learning as rediscovery. Science & Education.
  53. Passmore, C., Schwarz, C. V., & Mankowski, J. (2017). Developing and using models. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 109-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  54. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  55. Remmen, K. B., & Froyland, M. (2020) Students' use of observation in geology: Towards 'scientific observation' in rock classification, International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1704914
  56. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  57. Sadler, T. D. (2009) Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
  58. Schwarz, C. V., Passmore, C., & Reiser. B. J. (2017). Moving beyond "knowing about" science to making sense of the world. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 3-21). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  59. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  60. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176193
  61. Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89(6), 879-900. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20081
  62. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20232
  63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  64. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). New York, NY: Macmillan.
  65. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  66. Zheng, R. (2010). Effects of situated learning on students' knowledge acquisition: An individual differences perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(4), 467-487. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.4.c