Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2019.12.1.40

What Characteristics Do Preservice Teachers Show During Trilobite Classification Activities?  

Lim, Sungman (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education / v.12, no.1, 2019 , pp. 40-53 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study was to analyze the inquiry characteristics of preservice teachers as they classify trilobites. For the study, 70 preservice teachers attending teacher training university participated. The classification tasks used in the study were 9 photos of trilobite fossils. The preservice teachers' inquiry activity was to classify the evolutionary processes of trilobites after observing trilobite fossils by group and then to construct a phylogenetic tree. The results of the study are as follows. First, preservice teachers observed the external features of the trilobites and constructed systematic classification results based on their observed contents. Second, preservice teachers classified trilobites using various classification criteria. Third, the phylogenetic tree of preservice teachers and the phylogenetic tree of scientists were very similar. The preservice teachers constructed a sphylogenetic tree based on the observation and inference of the change from a simple form to a complex form, which is a general evolution process of the trilobite fossil claimed by scientists. These results suggest that group-based inquiry activities with sufficient time are very effective and that the experience of inquiry activities is very important for preservice teachers.
Keywords
preservice teacher; science inquiry; classification; trilobite; fossil;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 교육부(2018). 초등학교 3-4학년군: 과학 3-1 교사용 지도서. 서울: 비상교육.
2 곽영순(2006). 중등 과학교사들이 말하는 교과교육학지식의 의미와 교직 전문성 제고 방안. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(4), 527-536.
3 곽한영(2006). 실용지능의 개념이 예비교사 교육과정 개선에 갖는 함의에 대한 연구. 시인교육연구, 38(1), 1-18.
4 서혜애(2010). 과학.수학교사 생애주기 연수체제 구축을 위한 연구. 한국과학창의재단.
5 양일호, 권용주, 정지숙, 최현동(2006). 사다리 타고 오르는 기초 탐구 여행. 교육인적자원부.한국교원대학교 과학교육연구소.
6 양일호, 최현동(2008). 예비 초등 교사들의 분류 활동에서 나타난 분류 기준의 유형과 분류 전략의 특징. 초등과학교육, 27(1), 9-22.
7 이승배(2008). Systematics, biostratigraphy, and paleogeography of the upper Furongian trilobite. 서울대학교 박사학위논문.
8 윤혜경, 강남화, 김병석(2015). 예비 과학 교사의 과학, 과학학습, 과학 교수에 대한 인식론적 신념: 인식론적 신념의 맥락 의존성. 한구과학교육학회지, 35(1), 15-25.
9 이상균, 김순식(2014). 초등예비교사들의 실험설계활동에 나타난 특성 분석. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 7(3), 371-380.   DOI
10 이선경, 오필석, 김혜리, 이경호, 김찬종, 김희백(2009). 과학 교사의 교수내용지식과 실천적 지식에 관한 연구 관점 고찰. 한국교원교육연구, 26(1), 27-57.
11 이지현(2009). 예비교사의 실천적 지식 함양을 위한 수업프로그램 연구. 교육과학연구, 40(1), 1-33.
12 임성만(2014). 초등 영재학생을 위한 학교 학습 경험과 연계된 과학 탐구 프로그램 개발 및 적용: 지질 박물관을 이용하여. 과학교육연구지, 38(2), 244-256.
13 임성만(2017). 예비 지구과학 교사들은 교육실습을 통해 무엇을 느꼈을까? -대학 교육과정과 교육실습의 연관성을 중심으로-. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 10(1), 38-49.   DOI
14 임성만, 양일호, 김순미, 홍은주, 임재근(2010). 초등 예비교사들이 자유 탐구 활동 중에 겪은 어려움 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(2), 291-303.   DOI
15 임인숙(1994). 유아의 인지양식과 분류개념과의 관계. 아동교육, 4(1), 158-183.
16 최현동(2005). 초등학생 분류능력 발달의 경향성. 초등과학교육, 24(3), 281-291.
17 전경문(2017). 과학 실천의 측면에서 초등학교 예비교사들의 과학 탐구에 대한 인식 조사. 교과교육학연구, 21(6), 644-653.   DOI
18 조현준, 한인경, 김효남, 양일호(2008). 초등학교 과학 탐구 수업 실행의 저해 요인에 대한 교사들의 인식 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 901-921.
19 최영, 이무상, 송명섭(2010). 중학교 과학교사들의 수업실행 전문성 개발을 위한 교사교육 요구. 과학교육연구지, 34(2), 369-382.
20 최현동(2011). 대학생이 과학 관련 과제에서 사용한 분류 전략의 미시발생적 분석. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 4(2), 151-165.   DOI
21 Asay, L. D. & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in the science teacher, 1998-2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57-79.   DOI
22 Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching. London: Heinemann Educational.
23 Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M. & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.   DOI
24 Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Association for Science Teachers and Laurence Erlbaum.
25 Fortey, R. A. & Owens, R. M. (1989). The early Ordovician trilobite Beltella. Proceedings of the Bristol Naturalists' Society, 49, 69-79.
26 Connell, L. (2007). Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102(2007), 476-485.   DOI
27 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.   DOI
28 Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S. & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658.   DOI
29 Fortey, R. A. (2004). The lifestyles of the trilobites. American Scientist, 92(5), 446-453.   DOI
30 Fortey, R. A. (2007). 삼엽충: 고생대 3억 년을 누빈 진화의 산증인. 서울: 뿌리와이파리.
31 Gon III, S. M. (2009). A pictorial guide to the orders of trilobites. http://www.trilobites.info.
32 Kaur, R. (1973). Evaluation of the science process skills of observation and classification. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
33 Honey, J. & Paxman, H. (1986). The importance of taxonomy in biological education at advanced level. Journal of Biological Education, 24(2), 103-111.   DOI
34 Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child: Classification and seriation. London: Routledge.
35 Inoue, A. (2009). The technology of writing assessment and racial validity. In C. Schreiner (Ed.), Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education. Hershey, NY: IGI Global.
36 Ireland, J., Watters, J. J., Brownlee, J. L. & Lupton, M. (2012). Elementary teacher's conceptions of inquiry teaching: Messages for teacher development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 159-175.   DOI
37 Jensen, J. R. (1996). Introductory digital image processing. Prentice Hall, 2nd Edition.
38 Krnel, D., Glazar. S. S. & Waston. R. (2003). The development of the concept of "Matter": A cross-age study of how children classity materials. Science Education, 87(5), 621-639.   DOI
39 Leonard, J., Boakes, N. & Moore, C. M. (2009). Conducting science inquiry in primary classrooms: Case studies of two preservice teachers' inquiry-based practices. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 27-50.   DOI
40 Lieberman B. S. (2002). Phylogenetic analysis of some basal early Cambrian trilobites, the biogeographic origins of the eutrilobita, and the timing of the Cambrian radiation. Journal of Paleontology, 76(4), 692-708.   DOI
41 Norris, S. (1984). Defining observational competence. Science Education, 68(2), 129-142.   DOI
42 Windschitl, M. & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigations: An preservice instruction foster teachers' understandings of model-based inquiry? American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783-835.   DOI
43 NRC (National Research Council) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
44 Plevyak, L. H. (2007). What do preservice teachers learn in an inquiry-based science methods course? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 1-13.   DOI
45 Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673-680.   DOI
46 Seeds, M. A. (2006). Horizons (9th ed.). Books/Cole, a division of Tomson Learning, Inc.
47 Sotelo, A., Wang, J., Dalal, R. & Sharon Huynh, S. (2017). Trilobite tree lab 6: Phylogenetic tree for trilobite. http://biol212-majorsanimalbiology-winter17.blogspot.com/2017/01/trilobite-tree-lab-6-phylogenetic-tree.html.
48 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.   DOI