한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제43권6호
  • /
  • Pages.509-520
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학 학습지도를 위한 '과학적 설명'의 의미 명료화

Clarifying the Meaning of 'Scientific Explanation' for Science Teaching and Learning

  • 투고 : 2023.10.03
  • 심사 : 2023.11.13
  • 발행 : 2023.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

과학적 설명은 과학자의 과학적 실행에서 추구하는 주요한 목표이며 과학교육 과정 문서에서도 학생의 과학적 설명 구성 능력을 주요한 목표로 포함하고 있다. 따라서 그 의미를 명료화하는 것은 과학교육 공동체에서 중요한 문제이다. 이 논문에서는 주제 범위 문헌 고찰 방법을 사용하여 '과학적 설명'에 대한 3가지 관점을 추출하고 각각에 대해 고찰하였다(연역-법칙적 설명 모델, 확률론적 설명 모델, 실용적 설명 모델). 그리고 문헌 고찰 내용을 바탕으로 과학적 설명이 과학교육에서 사용하는 다른 개념들, 즉 '기술', '예상', '추론', '가설', '논증'과 어떤 점에서 유사하고 어떤 점에서 구분되는지 논의하면서 이러한 용어들의 의미를 구분하여 사용하는 것이 과학교육 연구와 실행에서 중요하다는 점을 주장하였다. 또 산물로서의 '과학적 설명'과 의사소통으로서 '과학적으로 설명하기'가 차이가 있음을 지적하고, 과학 교육과정의 성취기준 진술 방안, 학생의 과학적 설명 구성을 돕는 방안, 학생의 과학적 설명하기를 돕는 방안을 몇 가지 제안하였다. 예를 들어, 세 가지 과학적 설명 모델에 따라 각각 중요하게 고려해야 할 요인들을 구분하여 정리하고, 그러한 요인을 고려한 과학적 설명을 위한 과학 학습활동 사례를 제시하였다. 본 연구에서의 논의가 과학적 설명과 관련된 과학 학습에서 좀 더 분명하게 학습 목표를 설명하고 그에 따라 보다 적절한 학습활동을 설계하는 데 도움이 되기를 기대한다.

Scientific explanation is the main goal of scientists' scientific practice, and the science curriculum also includes developing students' abilities to construct scientific explanations as a major goal. Thus, clarifying its meaning is an important issue in the science education community. In this paper, the researchers identified three perspectives on 'scientific explanation' based on the scoping review method (Deductive-Nomological, Probabilistic, and Pragmatic explanation models). We argued that it is important to clarify and distinguish the meanings of 'scientific explanation' from other concepts used in science education, such as 'description', 'prediction', 'hypothesis', and 'argument' based on a review of the literature. It is also pointed out that there is a difference between 'scientific explanation' as a product and 'explaining scientifically' as communication, and several ways to revise achievement standard statements in the science curriculum are suggested, to guide students to construct scientific explanations and to help students to explain scientifically. By adopting the three scientific explanation models, the important factors to be considered were classified and organized, and examples of science learning activities for scientific explanation considering such factors were suggested. It is hoped that the discussion in this study will help establish clearer learning goals in science learning related to scientific explanation and aid the design of more appropriate learning activities accordingly.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2023년 교육부의 춘천교육대학교 국립대학 육성사업 사업비 지원을 받아 작성되었음.

참고문헌

  1. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
  2. Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental test of Bell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804-1807. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804
  3. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. A necessary unity. E. P. Dutton.
  4. Born, M. (1951). The restless universe. Dover Publications, Inc.
  5. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20449
  6. Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Minds and Machines, 8, 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008242619231
  7. Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the difference between explanation and argument matters to science education. Science & Education, 25(3-4), 251-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9826-6
  8. Cartwright, N. (1980). The truth doesn't explain much. American Philosophical Quarterly, 17(2), 159-163.
  9. Chang, J., Park, J., & Park, J. (2023). Analysis of scientific explanations and the affordances constructed in gifted elementary students' science drawings and science writings about air pressure: Pedagogical use of multimodal representations. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 42(1), 161-177.
  10. Choi, H.-C. (2011). A study on Van Fraassen's pragmatism of explanation. CHULHAK-RONCHONG, Journal of the New Korean Philosophical Association, 66(4), pp. 403-419.
  11. Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., ... & Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
  12. De Andrade, V., Freire, S., & Baptista, M. (2019). Constructing scientific explanations: A system of analysis for students' explanations. Research in Science Education, 49, 787-807.
  13. Douglas, H. E. (2009). Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science, 76(4), 444-463. https://doi.org/10.1086/648111
  14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(2), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  15. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
  16. Einstein A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum mechanical desertion of physical reality be considered? Physical Review, 47, 777-780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
  17. Alameh, S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Brown, D. (2023). The nature of scientific explanation: Examining the perceptions of the nature, quality, and "goodness" of explanation among college students, science teachers, and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(1), 100-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21792
  18. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 193-208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  19. Hanson, N. R. (1961). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In C. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation, and other essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 331-489). Free Press.
  21. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic og explanation. Philosophy of Science, XV, 135-175. https://doi.org/10.1086/286983
  22. Hoefer, C. (2023). Causal determinism, In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/determinism-causal/
  23. Hofstadter, A. (1951). Explanation and necessity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 11, 339-347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2103538
  24. Hong, S., & Chang, H.-W. (2010). Laboratory and creativity: The role of the leader and laboratory culture. Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 10(1), 27-71.
  25. Jeon, S. (2014). A comparison analysis of scientific communication skills between gifted students and general students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 24(1), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2014.24.1.149
  26. Jo, K.-H. (2015). Comparison of verbs in the contents of the national curriculum for elementary and middle school science: Focused on the 7th, 2007, and 2009 Revision. Journal of Science Education, 39(2), 239-254. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2015.39.2.239
  27. Khalil, H., Peters, M., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., & Parker, D. (2016). An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(2), 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12144
  28. Kim, M., & Yoon, H.-G. (2016). Scientific reasoning & argumentation. Kyoyookbook.
  29. Kulgemeyer, C., & Schecker, H. (2013). Students explaining science-assessment of science communication competence. Research in Science Education, 43, 2235-2256.
  30. Kwon, Y. -J., Jeong, J. -S., Kang, M. -J., & Kim, Y. -S. (2003). A grounded theory on the process of generating hypothesis - Knowledge about scientific episodes. Journal of the Korean Association for in Science Education, 23(5), 458-469.
  31. Lakatos, I. (1994). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worrall and G. Currie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers. Vol. 1 (pp. 8-101). Cambridge University Press.
  32. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and development of thinking. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  33. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  34. Lee, H. -J., & Shim, K. C. (2012). Analysis of writing characteristics of scientifically gifted students by explaining cell. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.1.141
  35. Martin, J. R. (1970). Explaining, understanding and teaching. McGraw Hill.
  36. Martin, M. (1972). Concepts of science education: A philosophical analysis. Scott, Foreman and Company.
  37. Ministry of Education (2022). Science curriculum. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  38. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  39. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  40. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535-563.
  41. Oh, P. S. (2020). An exploration of narrative explanation as a type of scientific explanation - Based on textbook explanations of El Lino -. Journal of Energy and Climate Change Education, 10(1), 13-24.
  42. Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95(4), 627-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
  43. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
  44. Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25, 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357405
  45. Park, C. (2021). The effects of causal question strategy on hypothesis generation in chemical Inquiry: From the scientific knowledge perspective and the developmental perspective. Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University.
  46. Park, J. & Han, S. (2002). Using deductive reasoning to promote the change of students' conceptions about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 593-609. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110074026
  47. Park, J. (2006). Modelling analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypotheses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 469-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500404540
  48. Park, S. -B. (2007). A Study on narrative explanation in science. CHUL HAK SA SANG - Journal of Philosophical Ideas, 24, 399-416.
  49. Peirce, C. S. (1998). The nature of meaning: the sixth lecture on 7 May 1903. In the Peirce Edition Project (Ed.), The essential Pierce: Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 2(1893-1913) (pp. 208-225). Indiana University Press.
  50. Quinn, M. E., & George, K. D. (1975). Teaching hypothesis formation. Science Education, 59, 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730590303
  51. Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford University Press.
  52. Salmon, W. C. (2006). Four decades of scientific explanation. University of Pittsburgh press.
  53. Schrodinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics). Naturwissenschaften. 23(48), 807-812. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491891
  54. Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  55. Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0201-4
  56. Van Fraassen, B. (1988). The pragmatic theory of explanation. In J. Pitt (Ed.), Theories of explanation. (pp. 136-155), Oxford University Press.
  57. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Wenham, M. (1993). The nature and role of hypotheses in school investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150301
  59. Yeo, J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Constructing a scientific explanation-A narrative account. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1902-1935. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.880527