Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Students' Understanding of the Analogies Used in Chemistry Education and the Limitations of Using Analogies

화학 교육에서 사용되는 비유에 대한 학생들의 이해도 및 비유 사용의 제한점

  • Published : 2004.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, students' understanding of the analogies used for chemical concepts in science textbooks, misconceptions induced by the analogy, and the factors affecting conceptual understanding were investigated. In addition to the tests of field independency and logical thinking ability, tests of students' understanding of concepts and analogies on three states of matter, pressure-volume relation, molecular motion, and changing state depending upon energy were administered. The results revealed that half of the subjects understood the analogies differently from the textbook writers' intention and that students' conceptual understanding was significantly correlated with the degree of understanding on corresponding analogies, field independency, logical thinking ability, and prior achievement of science. The results of analyzing the direct and indirect effects of each variable on conceptual understanding showed that the direct effect of prior achievement was significant and that field independency and logical thinking ability had indirect effects through understanding of analogies and prior achievement of science. The limitations and implications of using analogies in science education were discussed on the basis of the results.

본 연구에서는 화학 개념을 설명하기 위해 과학 교과서에 사용된 비유에 대한 학생들의 이해도를 조사하고, 비유의 제한점으로 인해 유발될 수 있는 오개념을 분석한 후, 개념 이해도에 영향을 미치는 요인에 대해 살펴보았다. 물질의 세 가지 상태, 부피와 압력 사이의 관계, 분자 운동, 상태 변화와 에너지에 대한 비유와 개념 이해 검사, 장독립성 검사, 논리적 사고력 검사를 실시하였다. 분석 결과 절반의 학생들이 교과서의 의도와 다르게 비유를 이해하고 있었으며, 개념 이해도는 그 개념을 설명하는 비유에 대한 이해도 뿐 아니라, 장독립성, 논리적 사고력, 사전 과학 성취도와 유의미한 정적 상관이 있었다. 개념 이해도에 미치는 각 변인의 직 간접적인 효과를 분석한 결과, 사전 과학 성취도의 직접적 영향이 유의미하였으며, 장독립성과 논리적 사고력은 사전 과학 성취도와 비유 이해를 통해 간접적으로 영향을 미칠 수 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이를 바탕으로 과학교육에서 비유 사용의 제한점과 그 함의에 대하여 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김영민, 박희숙(2000). 중학교 과학 교과서의 물리 개념 설명에 사용된 비유에 대한 학생들의 이해도 조사. 한국과학교육화학지, 20(3), 411-420
  2. 노태희, 김창민, 권혁순(1999). 대응 명료화 전략 및 비유물의 제시 시기가 중학생들의 과학 개념 이해에 미치는 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 19(1), 107-116
  3. 노태희, 임희연, 김창민, 강석진(1999) 학습자의 인지 및 동기 변인들과 비유를 통한 개념 이해도의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 19(3), 471-478
  4. Duit, R.(1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
  5. Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D.(1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Science Education, 64(5), 709-716 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730640516
  6. Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L.(1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In Gentner, D & Gentner, D. R. (Eds.), Mental Models (99-129); New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983
  7. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, L. J.(1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 5(1), 1-38
  8. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F.(1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade-10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291-1307 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301010
  9. Hsu, C. L.(1993). Content emphasis. practice. and cognitive style in analogical problem solving of college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Missoury Columbia
  10. Kircher, E.(1984). Analogies for the electric circuit? In: Duit, R., et al. (Eds), Aspects of understanding electricity - Proceedings of international workshop, International workshop, IPN, 299-310
  11. Kurtz. M. J.(1995). Using analogies to teach college chemistry: A multiple analogy approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University
  12. Lin, H., Shiau. B., & Lawrenz, F.(1996). The effectiveness of teaching science with pictorial analogies. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 495-511 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357457
  13. Linn, M. C., & Kyllonen, P.(1981). The field dependence-independence construct: Some, one or none. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 261-273 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.2.261
  14. Mason, L.(1994). Analogy，metaconceptual awareness and conceptual change: A classroom study. Educational Studies, 20. 267-292 https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569940200209
  15. Nottis, K. E. K.(1996). The effective use of analogies in earth science. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(1), 160A. (University Microfilms No. AAI96-17897)
  16. Roadrangka, V., Yeany，R. H., & Padilla，M. J.(1983). The construction and validation of Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, Texas
  17. Robinson, W. R., & Niaz, M.(1991). Performance based in instruction by lecture or by interaction and its relationship to cognitive variables. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 203-215 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130207
  18. Thagard, P.(1992). Analogy, explanation, and education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 573-544
  19. Thiele , R. B., & Treagust, D. F.(1991). Using analogies in secondary chemist!$\gamma$ teaching. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37(2), 4-14
  20. Treagust，D. F., Duit, R., Joslin , P., & Lindauer, I.(1992). Science teachers' use of analogies: Observations from classroom practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 413-422 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140404