Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.6.971

The Characteristics of Instrumental Genesis Appearing in the Processes of High School Students' School Scientific Inquiries  

Lee, Jaewon (Seoul National University)
Noh, Taehee (Seoul National University)
Lee, Sun-Kyung (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.37, no.6, 2017 , pp. 971-980 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, we explored the characteristics of instrumental genesis in high school students' scientific inquiries. Twenty-three 10th to 11th graders in a science research club participated in this study. The students in 6 groups autonomously planned and performed their own scientific inquiries for one semester. Their activities were videotaped and recorded. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Material request papers and group worksheets were also collected for analysis. The results of the study suggested that students' practices were categorized as instrument genesis. When instrument genesis did not occur, the cases at the beginning of and during the practice were described respectively. Instrumental genesis was found to appear in three categories: instrumentation; instrumentation and instrumentalization; and instrumentalization. The characteristics and details of case represented in each category were described and discussed related to affordance as the results of the study. On the bases of the results, the implications for the reconsideration of the instruments in school science inquiries are discussed.
Keywords
school scientific inquiry; instrumental genesis; instrumentation; instrumentalization; affordance;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 9  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Jhun, Y. S., & Jeon, M. J. (2010). The difficulty that is caused open inquiry instruction. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 20(1), 105-115.
2 Jung, W.-K., Lee, J.-K., & Oh, S. W. (2011). Investigation on the difficulties during middle school students' finding inquiry topics on open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1199-1213.
3 Kampourakis, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2003). A study of the effect of a practical activity on problem solving in chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 319-333.   DOI
4 Kang, Y. R., & Cho, C. S. (2015). An activity theoretical analysis on the instrumental orchestration of the teacher: Focusing on the calculator-based classroom activities of gifted elementary math students. Journal of Korea Society Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(2), 273-287.
5 Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77-101.   DOI
6 Wellington, J. J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3-15). New York: Routledge.
7 Lee, S. (2015). Materiality of science technologized. Journal of the Society of Philosophical Studies, 111, 123-148.
8 Lee, S. (2000). The nature and structure of experimentation: Epistemic approach founded on theory-network. (Doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
9 Lee, S. (2004). Philosophical understanding of doing experience. Korea: Seokwangsa.
10 Lee, S. (2009). Phenomena and instruments. Korea: Hanul academy.
11 Lee, S.-K., Han, J., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2015). Characteristics of student inquiry found in project-based science practices: Focusing on theory-evidence-method coordinations and skills in using tools. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 599-608.   DOI
12 McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Proceedings of Graphics Interface. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, Toronto, 2000, 179-186.
13 Metz, K. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290.   DOI
14 Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
15 Oh, P. S. (2017). An interpretation of modeling-based elementary science lessons from a perspective of distributed cognition. Elementary Science Education, 36(1), 16-30.   DOI
16 Kim, H., & Song, J. (2003). Middle school students’ ideas about the purposes of laboratory work. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(3), 254-264.
17 Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in western Australia: Opennes to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219-228.   DOI
18 Tomkins, S. P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12-year-old pupils undertaking science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791-813.   DOI
19 Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281-307.   DOI
20 Kapon, S. (2016). Doing research in school: Physics inquiry in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1172-1197.   DOI
21 Kim, S.-J. (2010). Re-understanding of technoscience and nature through actor-network theory. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society, 45(4), 461-477.
22 Kim, Y., & Yang, I.-H. (2005). The factor analysis of affecting elementary students’ science attitude change. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 24(3), 292-300.
23 Lee, J. H., Nam, J. H., & Moon, S. B. (2003). The effects of a performance assessment based on the experimental practice on student’s science achievement and affective domain in the middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(1), 66-74.
24 Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.   DOI
25 Park, H. (2012). A development of affordances design strategy for improvement of pedagogical usability on e-learning contents user interfaces. (Doctoral dissertation). Chung-Ang University, Seoul.
26 Park, J. (2000). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis: Focused on the definition and the characteristics of scientific hypothesis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4), 667-679.
27 Choi, C. I., & Lee, S.-K. (2016). Reconsidering the meanings of experiments and instruments based on the analysis of chemistry experiments in textbooks. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(4), 267-275.   DOI
28 Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
29 Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
30 Han, S. H., & Chang, K. Y. (2009). Instrumental genesis of Computer Algebra System(CAS) in mathematical problem solving among high school students. School Mathematics, 11(3), 527-546.
31 Han, Y.-H. (2012). Development of classroom inquiry model to improve scientific communication ability. (Doctoral dissertation). Korea National University of Education, Cheongju.
32 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., & Day, R. S. (2002). "It's harder than we thought it would be": A comparative case study of expert-novice experimentation. Science Education, 86(2), 219-243.   DOI
33 Yang, I.-H., Jeong, J.-W., Kim, Y.-S., Kim, M.-K., & Cho, H.-J. (2006). Analyses of the aims of laboratory activity, interaction, and inquiry process within laboratory instruction in secondary school science. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(5), 509-520.
34 Yoo, J., & Kim, J. (2012). Middle school students’ construction of physics inquiry problems and variables isolation and clarification during small group open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 903-927.   DOI
35 Anderson, K., Frappier, M., Neswald, E., & Trim, H. (2013). Reading instruments: Objects, texts and museums. Science & Education, 22(5), 1167-1189.   DOI
36 Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245-274.   DOI
37 Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge: A philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
38 Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655-675.   DOI
39 Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behavior & Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338.   DOI
40 Jeong, J., Lee, K., & Kim, J. (2006). Analysis of inquiry teaching levels of beginning science teachers in middle school science laboratories. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(4), 364-373.
41 Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.   DOI
42 Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.   DOI
43 Bud, R., & Warner, D. (1998). Instruments of science. An historical encyclopedia. London and New York: Smithsonian Institution.
44 Chamizo, J. A. (2014). The role of instruments in three chemical' revolutions. Science & Education, 23(4), 955-982.   DOI
45 Park, Y.-S. (2006). Theoretical study on the opportunity of scientific argumentation for implementing authentic scientific inquiry. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(4), 401-415.
46 Perry, P. (1995). Getting started in science fairs: From planning to judging. New York: McGraw-Hill.
47 Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., Phelps, S., Kyle, T., & Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 467-484.   DOI
48 Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
49 Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89(5), 803-821.   DOI
50 Shin, H.-H., & Kim, H.-N. (2010). Analysis of elementary teachers' and students' views about difficulties on open science inquiry activities. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(3), 262-276.