Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1259

The Effect of Science Writing Heuristic Laboratory Class on the Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking of Middle School Students  

Park, Sungju (Pusan National University)
Moon, Seongbae (Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.33, no.7, 2013 , pp. 1259-1272 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) laboratory class on the creative thinking and critical thinking of middle school students. Science writing heuristic programs were developed based on SWH strategies developed by Keys et al (1999). This study was conducted on 63 students from two classes as the comparative group and 63 students from two other classes as the experimental group. The cognitive level of the group as a homogeneous group was similar, and the program was applied to a total of 18 periods based on nine topics from March to July 2011. Evaluation instruments used in pre-test and post-test were the creative and critical thinking tests. To consider the score for creative and critical thinking. the SPSS 20.0 program was used. The study made use of technical statistics and ANCOVA. The result of this study showed that creative problem solving skills were improved by SWH in laboratory class. Therefore, persistent presentation of SWH teaching strategies and developing various experiment topics are required.
Keywords
creative thinking; critical thinking; Science Writing Heuristic(SWH);
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 강순희 (2011). 보통 학생들을 위한 창의적 문제 해결력 지향 과학 교수 기법. 화학교육지, 38(02), 2-9.
2 곽영순 (1995). 지구과학 실험수업에서 V 모형의 적용 효과. 서울대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문.
3 교육과학기술부 (2010). '창의.인성교육 기본방안'발표- 창의와 배려의 조화를 통한 인재 육성 추진.
4 교육인적자원부 (2008). 2007 개정 과학과 교육과정(교육인적자원부 고시 제2006-75호) 중학교 교육과정 해설(III). 서울: (주) 대한교과서.
5 김미정 (2011). 전략적 읽기틀을 이용한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기가 중학생들의 학업성취도와 비판적 사고력 및 요약 글쓰기에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문.
6 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Brian Hand (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 922-936.   과학기술학회마을
7 박영목, 한철우, 윤희원 (2001). 국어과 교수학습 방법 탐구. 서울: 교육과학사.
8 박은미 (2006). 귀추에 근거한 가설-연역적 수업 프로그램이 창의적 사고와 비판적 사고 및 과학적 태도에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 박사학위 논문.
9 박인숙 (2010). 메타인지 기능을 강화한 과학 창의적 문제해결 능력 신장 프로그램 개발과 적용. 이화여자대학교 박사학위 논문.
10 배희숙 (2008). 과학 탐구 능력 향상을 위한 과학 글쓰기 교수.학습전략의 개발 및 적용. 서울교육대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문.
11 송주연 (2011). 창의적 문제 해결력 수업 전략에서의 메타인지 강화 효과. 이화여자대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문.
12 성숙경, 최병순 (2007). 이질 모둠이 수행한 과학탐구실험 과정에서 상호작용의 변화와 특성. 한국과학교육학회지, 27(9), 870-880.   과학기술학회마을
13 양일호, 조현준 (2005). 학교 과학수업에서 실험의 목적에 대한 고찰. 초등과학교육, 24(3), 268-280.   과학기술학회마을
14 이은경, 강성주 (2006). 문제해결형 탐구모듈 적용에서의 SWH 활용 효과에 대한 학생들의 인식조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(4), 537-545.
15 이은주 (2010). 메타인지를 활용한 직접적 탐구 기능 수업전략에 대한 연구. 이화여자대학교 박사학위 논문.
16 임재영 (2001). 토론식 쓰기 수업 모형-논술 교육을 중심으로. 성균관대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문.
17 천재훈 (2006). 과학적 사고력 향상을 위한 과학글쓰기 활동. 경상대학교대학원 석사학위 논문.
18 황신영 (2011). 과학 글쓰기 프로그램이 중학생들의 과학 창의성과 과학에 대한 태도에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 박사학위 논문.
19 Akkus. R., Gunel. M., & Hand. B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Joural of Science Education. 29(14), 1745-1765.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Basili, P. A., & Sanford, J. P. (1991). Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 293-304.   DOI
21 Chang, H. P., & Lederman, N. G. (1994). The effects of levels of cooperation with in physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 167-181.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Driver, R. (1989). Student's conceptions and learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481-490.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Ennis (1985). A taxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. In J. B. Barom, & R. J. Sternberg. (Eds) Teaching thinking skills: Theory and Practice, 9-26. N.Y.: Freeman and company.
24 Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Mcdermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and instruction, 19, 354-367.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1993). 창의적인 문제 해결력(전경원, 박정옥 공역.). 서울: 서원.
26 Flower L. S., & Hayes J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes, In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. Eds., Cognitive processes in writing, (pp. 4-30). Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.
27 Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Hand, B. M., Meier, L. N., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2006). When science and literacy meet in the secondary learning space: Implementing the science writing heuristic(SWH). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
29 Hodson, D. K. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33-40.
30 Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning Writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Karnes, F. A. & Bean, S. M. (2003). 영재 교육의 방법과 자료(하)(이화국, 김언주, 문정화 공역). 서울: 대교.
32 Kelly, G. J. Bazerman, C., Skukauakaite, A., & Prothero, W. (2002). Rhetorical features of student science writing in introductory university oceanography. Paper presented at the International Conference Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Consideration of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada.
33 Lunetta, V. M. (1998). The school science laboratory: History perspectives and context of contemporary teaching. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
34 Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigation in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-tolearn. An Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379-390.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Lawrenz, F., & Munch, T. W. (1984). The effect of grouping of laboratory students on selected educational outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(7), 699-708.   DOI
37 Martin, R. M. (1997). Scientific thinking. Ontario: Broadview Press.
38 Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39 Popper. K. R. (1994). 과학적 발견의 논리(박우석 역). 서울: 고려원.
40 Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(3), 179-201.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Reber, A. S., & Reber E.S. (2001). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology 3rd Ed., New York: Penguin Books.
42 Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). 학교전체 심화학습 모형(김홍원 역.). 서울: 문음사.
43 Roadranka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1983). The construction and validation of group assessment of logical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, Texas.
44 Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker Eds., Encyclopedia of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
45 Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (2000). Creative Problem Solving: An introduction. 3rd Ed.. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
46 Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in science classroom. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47 Treffinger, D. J. & Reis, S. M. (2004). Creativity and giftedness. California: Corwin Press.