Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2010.30.5.557

The Theoretical Review of the Feature and Application of Science Teaching Models  

Cho, Hee-Hyung (Kangwon National University)
Kim, Hee-Kyung (Kangwon National University)
Yoon, Hee-Sook (Kangwon National University)
Lee, Ki-Young (Kangwon National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.30, no.5, 2010 , pp. 557-575 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to suggest the characteristics and goals of the science teaching model for use as criteria in selecting the appropriate teaching model for science in secondary schools. These characteristics and the goals have been organized based on the analyses of the literature on the teaching and/or instructional model. The teaching models have been classified into four areas, and the characteristics and goals of each area have been summarized as follows: $\cdot$ Traditional models: teaching of scientific knowledge through lectures, acquisition of scientific knowledge through discovery, acquisition of inquiry process skills through inquiry-based teaching/learning $\cdot$ Transitional models: demonstration and discovery as teaching strategies, acquisition of inquiry process skills through inquiry approach, acquisition and change of scientific knowledge $\cdot$ Modernistic model - conceptual change models: differentiation of scientific knowledge, exchange of misconceptions for scientific concepts - learning cycle models: conceptual differentiation, exchange of misconceptions, acquisition of science process skills Also described in this paper are the model's characteristics and goals that can be used as the criteria for selecting the appropriate teaching model for the subject that will be taught.
Keywords
teaching model; conceptual change model; learning cycle model;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 조희형, 김희경, 윤희숙, 이기영 (2009). 과학교육 의 이론과 실제, 제3판. 교육과학사.
2 Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N. G. (eds.) (2007). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
3 Abraham, M. R. (1992). Instructional strategies designed to teach science concepts. In F. Lawrenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik, & P. Simpson (eds.) Research matter...to the science teacher, NARST mo, graph, no. 5. Manhattan, KS: NARST.
4 Alexander, P. A. & Winne, P. H. (2006) (eds.). Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd ed. Mahwash, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
5 Alsop, S. & Hicks, K. (2001). Teaching science: A handbook for primary & secondary school teachers. London: Kogan page Limited.
6 White, T. T. (1988). Learning science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
7 White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
8 Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative processes. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87-95.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Wittrock, M. C. (1985). Learning science by generating new conceptions form old ideas. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines. eds. Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
10 Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (eds.) Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
11 Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Franklin, T. (2009). Teaching science for all children, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson.
12 Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Gerlovich, J. (2002). Teaching science for all children: Methods for constructing understanding. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
13 Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Towards a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science 11, 183-200.   DOI
14 Osborne, R. J. & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508.   DOI
15 Pavitt, C. & Curtis, E. (1994). Small group discussion: A theoretical approach, 2nd ed. Scottsdale, Arizona: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Publisher.
16 Renner, J. (1982). The power of purpose. Science Education, 66(5), 709-716.   DOI
17 Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (eds.) Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
18 Schwab, J. J. (1966). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein(eds.) The teaching of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
19 Science Curriculum Improvement Study(SCIS) (1974). SCIS teacher's handbook. Berkley, CA: University of California.
20 Settlage, J. & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point. New York: Routledge.
21 Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.
22 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23 West, L. H. T. & Pines, A. L. (1985). Introduction. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines. (eds.) Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
24 Gallagher, J. J. (2007). Teaching science for understanding: A practical guide for middle and high school teachers. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
25 Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Mintz, S. L. (2007). Instruction: A models approach, 5th ed. New York: Pearson.
26 Hashweh, M. (1986). Toward an explanation of conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 229-249.   DOI
27 Hergenhahn, B. R. & Olson, M. H. (2005). An introduction to theories of learning, 7th ed. Upper Saddler River, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc.
28 Herr, N. (2008). The sourcebook for teaching science: Strategies, activities, and instructional resources. San Franisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
29 Hill, A. M. & Smith, H. A. (2005). Problembased contextualized learning. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, E. Pedretti (eds.) Analyzing exemplary science teaching. Berkshire, Open University Press.
30 Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching, 7th ed. Boston: Pearson.
31 Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169-175. In R. G. Fuller (ed.) (2002) A love of discovery: Science education - The second career of Robert Karplus. New York: Kluwer Academic.   DOI
32 Lawson, A. E. (1991). Exploring growth (& mitosis) through a learning cycle. The American Biology Teacher, 53(2), 107-110.   DOI
33 Lawson, A. (1995). Scientific teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
34 Lawson, A. E. (2002). The learning cycle. In R. G. Fuller (ed.) (2002) A love of discovery: Science education - The second career of Robert Karplus. New York: Kluwer Academic.
35 Lawson, A. E. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Los Angeles: SAGE.
36 Lee, C. A. (2003). Learning cycle inquiry into plant nutrition. The American Biology Teacher, 65(2), 136-141.   DOI   ScienceOn
37 Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Instructional consequences of students' knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines. (eds.) Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
38 Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074-1076.   DOI
39 Chiappetta, E. L. & Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
40 Cosgrove, M. & Osborne, R. (1985). Lesson frameworks for changing children's ideas. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg. Learning in science: The implications of children's science. London: Heinemann..
41 Driver, R. (1982). Children's learning in science. Educational Analysis, 4(2), 69-79.
42 Ebenezer, J. V. & Haggerty, S. M. (1999). Becoming a secondary school science teacher. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merill.
43 Driver, R. (1987). Changing conceptions. Prepared for international seminar, adolescent development and school science, King's Colllege, London, September 13-17.
44 Dunkhase, J. A. (2003). The coupledinquiry cycle: A teacher concerns-based model for effective student inquiry. Science Educator, 12(1), 11-15.
45 Dykstra, D. I. (2005). cited from J. Hassard & M. Dias (2009). The art of teaching science: Inquiry and innovation in middle school and high school, 2nd ed. New York and London: Routledge.
46 Eggen, P. D. & Kauchak, D. P. (2006). Strategies and models for teachers: teaching content and thinking skills, 4th ed. Boston: Pearson.
47 Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model: A proposed 7E model emphasizes "transfer of learning" and the importance of eliciting prior understanding. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 56-59.
48 Erickson, G. L. (1979). Children's conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education, 63, 221-230.   DOI
49 Freyberg, P. & Osborne, R. (1985). Assumptions about teaching and learning. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg. Learning in science: The implications of children's science. London: Heinemann.
50 Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Ledrman (eds.) Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
51 Arends, R. I. (2009). Learning to teach, 8th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill.
52 Atkin, J. M. & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45- 47. In R. G. Fuller, ed. (2002). A love of discovery: Science education-The second career of Robert Karplus.
53 Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: a cognitive view. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
54 Barman, C. R. (1996). Bridging the gap between the old and the new: Helping teachers move towards a new vision of science education. In J. Rhoton. & P. Bowers. (eds.) Issues in science education. NSTA.
55 Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
56 Bentley, M., Ebert, C., & Ebert, E. S. (2000). The natural investigator: A constructivist approach to teaching elementary and middle school science. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
57 Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2006) Education for the knowledge age: Designcentered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (eds.) Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
58 Biological Science Curriculum Study(BSCS) (1993). Developing biological literacy: A guide to developing secondary and post-secondary biology curricula. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
59 Bruner, J. S. (1968). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
60 Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving sicentific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
61 Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
62 Cain, S. E. (2002). Sciencing, 4th ed. Columbus, OH: Merill.
63 Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. London: A Bradford Book.