• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.340-350
• /
• 2023

This study analyzed the difficulty level of class on the seasonal change unit for 84 students at a university of education. The conclusions of this study are as follows. First, if we first present the four topics that make up the seasonal changes in elementary science, the subjects that have the greatest difficulty in teaching for prospective elementary school teachers are 'Why do seasonal changes occur?' (Teaching difficulty level 4.05), 'The sun changes depending on the season' What is the difference between the southern altitude and the length of day and night?' (difficulty level of class, 3.12), 'What is the relationship between the altitude of the sun, length of shadow, and temperature during the day?' (difficulty level of class, 2.85), 'How does the temperature change depending on the season?' (class difficulty level 2.80). As a result, in the elementary science season change unit, the class on the four topics 'Why do seasons change?', which is classified as a class topic that requires the concept of spatial perception, showed a higher level of class difficulty than other units. Second, in the seasonal change unit, various factors of class difficulty appeared depending on the class topic. When pre-service elementary school teachers look at the factors that make class difficult when teaching a lesson on seasonal changes in order of frequency, 42 (50%) said 'Experimental instruction for comparing the altitude of solar masculine according to the tilt of the axis of rotation', followed by 'Solar masculine'. 38 people (45%) answered 'Difficulty in explaining mid-high altitude and the length of day and night', 27 people (32%) answered 'Difficulty in explaining the concept of mid-high altitude', and 24 people (32%) answered 'Difficulty in explaining seasonal changes in the sun's position.' 29%), 20 people (24%) said 'Explain the reasonable reason why the height of the light should be adjusted when measuring the solar altitude', and 16 people (19%) said 'It is difficult to explain the reason for the discrepancy between the solar altitude and the maximum temperature'. ), 'difficulties in measuring sand (ground) temperature' were mentioned by 12 people (14%). Third, when analyzing the factors of class difficulty, there were more curriculum factors than teacher factors. In this context, the exploratory activities on 'Why do seasonal changes occur?', the fourth topic of the seasonal change unit in which elementary school pre-service teachers showed the greatest difficulty in teaching, need improvement in terms of the curriculum.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.376-388
• /
• 1996

The first and the second "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation" was evaluated in this study. This contest was a part of 'Korean Youth Science Festival' held in 1993 and 1994. The evaluation was based on the data collected from the middle school students of final teams, their teachers, a large number of middle school students and college students who were audience of the final competition. Questionnaires, interviews, reports of final teams, and video tape of final competition were used to collect data. The study focussed on three research questions. The first was about the preparation and the research process of students of final teams. The second was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest. The third was whether participating the Contest was useful experience for the students and the teachers of the final teams. The first area, the preparation and the research process of students, were investigated in three aspects. One was the level of cooperation, participation, support and the role of teachers. The second was the information search and experiment, and the third was the report writing. The students of the final teams from both years, had positive opinion about the cooperation, students' active involvement, and support from family and school. Students considered their teachers to be a guide or a counsellor, showing their level of active participation. On the other hand, the interview of 1993 participants showed that there were times that teachers took strong leading role. Therefore one can conclude that students took active roles most of the time while the room for improvement still exists. To search the information they need during the period of the preparation, student visited various places such as libraries, bookstores, universities, and research institutes. Their search was not limited to reading the books, although the books were primary source of information. Students also learned how to organize the information they found and considered leaning of organizing skill useful and fun. Variety of experiments was an important part of preparation and students had positive opinion about it. Understanding related theory was considered most difficult and important, while designing and building proper equipments was considered difficult but not important. This reflects the students' school experience where the equipments were all set in advance and students were asked to confirm the theories presented in the previous class hours. About the reports recording the research process, students recognize the importance and the necessity of the report but had difficulty in writing it. Their reports showed tendency to list everything they did without clear connection to the problem to be solved. Most of the reports did not record the references and some of them confused report writing with story telling. Therefore most of them need training in writing the reports. It is also desirable to describe the process of student learning when theory or mathematics that are beyond the level of middle school curriculum were used because it is part of their investigation. The second area of evaluation was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest, the problems given to students, and the process of student discussion. The format of the Contests, which consisted of four parts, presentation, refutation, debate and review, received good evaluation from students because it made students think more and gave more difficult time but was meaningful and helped to remember longer time according to students. On the other hand, students said the time given to each part of the contest was too short. The problems given to students were short and open ended to stimulate students' imagination and to offer various possible routes to the solution. This type of problem was very unfamiliar and gave a lot of difficulty to students. Student had positive opinion about the research process they experienced but did not recognize the fact that such a process was possible because of the oneness of the task. The level of the problems was rated as too difficult by teachers and college students but as appropriate by the middle school students in audience and participating students. This suggests that it is possible for student to convert the problems to be challengeable and intellectually satisfactory appropriate for their level of understanding even when the problems were difficult for middle school students. During the process of student discussion, a few problems were observed. Some problems were related to the technics of the discussion, such as inappropriate behavior for the role he/she was taking, mismatching answers to the questions. Some problems were related to thinking. For example, students thinking was off balanced toward deductive reasoning, and reasoning based on experimental data was weak. The last area of evaluation was the effect of the Contest. It was measured through the change of the attitude toward science and science classes, and willingness to attend the next Contest. According to the result of the questionnaire, no meaningful change in attitude was observed. However, through the interview several students were observed to have significant positive change in attitude while no student with negative change was observed. Most of the students participated in Contest said they would participate again or recommend their friend to participate. Most of the teachers agreed that the Contest should continue and they would recommend their colleagues or students to participate. As described above, the "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation", which was developed and tried as a new science contest, had positive response from participating students and teachers, and the audience. Two among the list of results especially demonstrated that the goal of the Contest, "active and cooperative science learning experience", was reached. One is the fact that students recognized the experience of cooperation, discussion, information search, variety of experiments to be fun and valuable. The other is the fact that the students recognized the format of the contest consisting of presentation, refutation, discussion and review, required more thinking and was challenging, but was more meaningful. Despite a few problems such as, unfamiliarity with the technics of discussion, weakness in inductive and/or experiment based reasoning, and difficulty in report writing, The Contest demonstrated the possibility of new science learning environment and science contest by offering the chance to challenge open tasks by utilizing student science knowledge and ability to inquire and to discuss rationally and critically with other students.