• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.509-520
• /
• 2023

Scientific explanation is the main goal of scientists' scientific practice, and the science curriculum also includes developing students' abilities to construct scientific explanations as a major goal. Thus, clarifying its meaning is an important issue in the science education community. In this paper, the researchers identified three perspectives on 'scientific explanation' based on the scoping review method (Deductive-Nomological, Probabilistic, and Pragmatic explanation models). We argued that it is important to clarify and distinguish the meanings of 'scientific explanation' from other concepts used in science education, such as 'description', 'prediction', 'hypothesis', and 'argument' based on a review of the literature. It is also pointed out that there is a difference between 'scientific explanation' as a product and 'explaining scientifically' as communication, and several ways to revise achievement standard statements in the science curriculum are suggested, to guide students to construct scientific explanations and to help students to explain scientifically. By adopting the three scientific explanation models, the important factors to be considered were classified and organized, and examples of science learning activities for scientific explanation considering such factors were suggested. It is hoped that the discussion in this study will help establish clearer learning goals in science learning related to scientific explanation and aid the design of more appropriate learning activities accordingly.

• Journal of Wetlands Research
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.75-82
• /
• 2023

Data for measuring the flow rate of streams are used as important basic data for the development and maintenance of water resources, and many experts are conducting research to make more accurate measurements. Especially, in Korea, monsoon rains and heavy rains are concentrated in summer due to the nature of the climate, so floods occur frequently. Therefore, it is necessary to measure the flow rate most accurately during a flood to predict and prevent flooding. Thus, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) introduces 1, 2, 3 point method using a flow meter as one way to measure the average flow rate. However, it is difficult to calculate the average flow rate with the existing 1, 2, 3 point method alone.This paper proposes a new 1, 2, 3 point method formula, which is more accurate, utilizing one probabilistic entropy concept. This is considered to be a highly empirical study that can supplement the limitations of existing measurement methods. Data and Flume data were used in the number of holesman to demonstrate the utility of the proposed formula. As a result of the analysis, in the case of Flume Data, the existing USGS 1 point method compared to the measured value was 7.6% on average, 8.6% on the 2 point method, and 8.1% on the 3 point method. In the case of Coleman Data, the 1 point method showed an average error rate of 5%, the 2 point method 5.6% and the 3 point method 5.3%. On the other hand, the proposed formula using the concept of entropy reduced the error rate by about 60% compared to the existing method, with the Flume Data averaging 4.7% for the 1 point method, 5.7% for the 2 point method, and 5.2% for the 3 point method. In addition, Coleman Data showed an average error of 2.5% in the 1 point method, 3.1% in the 2 point method, and 2.8% in the 3 point method, reducing the error rate by about 50% compared to the existing method.This study can calculate the average flow rate more accurately than the existing 1, 2, 3 point method, which can be useful in many ways, including future river disaster management, design and administration.