Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Characteristics of Cognitive Conflict in Vocational Students Confronted with an Anomalous Situation of Action and Reaction Task

작용.반작용 과제에서 불일치현상에 대면한 실업계 고등학생의 인지갈등 특성

  • Published : 2005.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In spite of the importance of cognitive conflict in conceptual change, there has been little research on the characteristics of cognitive conflict in students enrolled at vocational high schools. The purpose of this study was to expose these students' cognitive conflict types and investigate characteristics of cognitive conflict according to the type of cognitive conflict. This paper examined how vocational students' motivational beliefs and epistemological beliefs affect the process of cognitive conflict when students are confronted with an anomalous situation related to the action and reaction concept. Results indicated that many vocational students experienced low levels of cognitive conflict and remained passive during the explanation of anomalous phenomenon or easily desisted any attempt to resolve the conflict situation because of their epistemological belief to depend on the external absolute knowledge of teachers, an extrinsic motivation to choose easier tasks, or reliance on the teachers' reputations. Therefore, Instructors need to recognize these characteristics in order to facilitate vocational students' conceptual change when presenting cognitive conflict tasks.

개념변화에서 인지갈등의 중요성에도 불구하고, 실업계 학생들의 인지갈등 특성에 관한 연구는 찾아보기 힘들다. 이 연구의 목적은 실업계 학생들의 인지갈등 유형을 알아보고, 그 유형에 따른 인지갈등 특성을 밝혀보는 것이다. 이 연구에서 연구자들은 실업계 학생들이 작용과 반작용 개념과 관련된 불일치 상황에 직면했을 때, 인지갈등 유형에 따라 학생의 동기적 요인과 인식론적 신념이 어떻게 인지갈등 과정에 영향을 미치는가를 탐색하였다. 연구결과, 많은 실업계 학생들이 낮은 수준의 인지갈등을 경험하고, 불일치 현상을 설명하는데 수동적이거나 갈등 상활을 해결하려는 시도를 쉽게 포기하려는 경향을 보여주었다. 왜냐하면 이 학생들은 교사의 절대적 지식에 의존하려는 인식론적 신념을 갖고 있고, 쉬운 과제 선호성과 교사의 인정에 초점을 맞추는 외적 동기를 갖고 있기 때문이다. 따라서 교사들이 인지갈등 과제를 제시할 때, 실업계 학생들의 개념변화를 촉진하기 위해서는 이러한 인지갈등 특성을 잘 인식해야만 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육인적자원부 (2004) 교육통계조사 교육인적자원부
  2. 권재술 (1989). 과학 개념의 한 인지적 모형. 물리교육, 7, 1-9
  3. 권난주, 권재술 (2004). 인지갈등에 의한 중학생의 과학 개념 변화에서 학습자 특성의 영향. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문
  4. 권재술, 이경호, 김연수 (2003). 인지갈등과 개념변화의 필요조건과 충분조건 한국과학교육학회지, 23, 574-591
  5. 김범기, 권재술 (1995). 과학개념과 인지적 갈등의 유형이 학생들의 개념변화에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 15, 472-486
  6. 김신일 (2002). 교육사회학. 교육과학사
  7. 김연수 (2002) 인지갈등 불안유형과 귀인의 동기 심리학적 요인에 따른 학생의 물리개념 변화 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문
  8. 김연수, 조용현, 권재술 (2005). 작용 반작용 과제에서 고등학생의 인지갈등 불안유형에 따른 설명가설 형성의 특성(II). 한국과학교육학회지, 25, 79-89
  9. 김연수, 서상오, 이경호, 박현주, 권재술 (2001 ). 중등과학교육에서 인지갈등 수업전략 활용 실태. 한국과학교육학회지, 21, 400-410
  10. 김익균 (1997). 대립 개념의 증거적 비판 논의와 반성적 사고를 중심으로 한 물리 개념변화 모형. 한국과학교육학회지, 12, 77-90
  11. 김지나, 권재술 (2005) 물리학습에서 불일치 상황에 직면한 학생들의 반응유형 관찰 및 인식, 신념변화, 제안하는 실험의 유형, 신념변화에 따른 인지갈등 정도. 한국과학교육학회지, 25, 162-172
  12. 노태희, 임희연, 강석진, 김순주 (2001), 학생의 인 지적.정의적 변인, 변칙 사례에 의한 인지갈등, 개념변화 사이의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 21, 658-667
  13. 노태희, 정은희, 강석진, 한재영 (2002). 개념 학습에서 변칙 사례의 역할. 한국과학교육학회지, 22, 586-594
  14. 문성숙, 권재술 (2004). 학습자의 역학적 에너지에 대한 개념변화 중에 살펴본 물리지식과 앎에 대한 인식론적 신념간의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 24, 499-518
  15. 박지연, 이경호 (2004) 과학개념변화 연구에서 학생의 개념에 대한 이해: 오개념 (misconception) 에서 정신모형 (metal model)까지. 한국과학교육학회지, 24. 621-637
  16. 유평수 (2002) 실업계고교 교육을 진단한다. 교육비평, 2002가을(9), 238-254
  17. 이채은, 이경호, 김지나, 권재술 (2001). 인지갈등 상황 제시유형에 따른 고등학생들의 역학 개념변화. 한국과학교육학회지, 21, 697-709
  18. 인지갈등전략연구회 (2003). 선풍기를 이용하여 무 풍지대를 빠져나올 수 있을까. 제 44차 한국과학교육학회 정기총회 및 하계학술대회 워크숍, 151-153
  19. 인지갈등전략연구회 (2004). 하늘을 나는 선풍기. 제 46차 한국과학교육학회 정기총회 및 하계학술대회 워크숍, 160-163
  20. 임성민 (2002). 실업계고등학생의 과학선호도와 인과요인 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 22, 892-905
  21. 정태화 (2002). 실업계고교 교육의 개선 방향. 교육비평, 가을(9), 230-237
  22. 조용현, 김연수, 권재술 (2004). 작용 반작용 과제에 서 고등학생의 인지갈등 불안유형에 따른 설명가설 형성의 특성(I). 한국과학교육학회지, 24, 596-611
  23. 채창균 (2002). 실업계고교 교육의 정상화 방안. 교육비평, 겨울(10), 144-160
  24. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1
  25. Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). The empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 35, 623-654 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
  26. Clark, R. B. (1986a). The answer in obvious, isn't it'? The Physics Teacher, 24, 38-39 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2341931
  27. Clark, R. B. (1986b). Response. The Physics Teacher, 24, 393
  28. Gregoire, M (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teacher's cognition and appraisal process during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 117-155 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023477131081
  29. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_5
  30. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovith, R. (1990). Applyng the 'cognitive conflict' strategy for conceptual change: Some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science education, 74, 555-569 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740506
  31. Druyan, S. (1997). Effect of the Kinesthetic Conflict on Promoting Scientific Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1083-1099 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1083::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-N
  32. Druyan, S. (2001), A comparison of four types of cognitive conflict and their effect on cognitive development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 226-236 https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000276
  33. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics Education Supplement, 68, S52-S59 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19520
  34. Harter, S. (1980). A scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom. University of Denvor
  35. Hashweh, M. Z. (1986). Toward an explanation of conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 229-249 https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080301
  36. Hewitt, P. (1988). Figuring physics. The Physics Teacher, 26(1), 57-58
  37. Hewitt, P. (2003). Conceptual physics. (9th Ed.), Addition-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
  38. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43-55 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5
  39. Hofer, B. K (2005). The legacy and the challenges: Paul Pintrich's contributions to personal epistemology research. Educational Psychologist, 40, 95-105 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_4
  40. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
  41. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  42. Jargodzki, C., & Potter, F. (2001), Mad about physics: Braintwisters, paradoxes, and curiosities. New York: John Willey
  43. Jehng, J. J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and student's epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23-35 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1004
  44. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71-96 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.b3
  45. Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2004a). Development of an instrument for evaluating anxiety caused by cognitive conflict. The Program of Physics Education Research Conference 2004, 18
  46. Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2004b). Student anxiety types in cognitive conflict situations and conceptual change. AAPT Announcer, Vol. 34(2), pp. 133
  47. Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2005). Using the iCARE for monitoring cognitive conflicts and anxeity. AAPT Announcer, Vol. 35(2), pp. 142
  48. Kim, Y., Cho, Y., Shin, S., Kwon, J., & Bao, L. (2004). Anxiety types in cognitive conflict at action and reaction task. AAPT Announcer, 34(2), 132
  49. Kim, Y., & Kwon, J. (2004). Cognitive conflict and causal attributions to successful conceptual change in physics learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24, 687-708
  50. Lee, Y., & Kwon, J. (2002). The effects of cognitive conflict on students' conceptual change in physics. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22, 923-943
  51. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2003). Toward an understanding and use of cognitive conflict in science instruction(I). Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23, 360-374
  52. Lee, G, H., Kwon, J, S., Park, S. S., Kim, J. W., Kwon, H. G., & Park, H. K. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict In secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 585-603 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099
  53. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2004). How does cognitive conflict affect conceptual change process in high school physics classrooms? Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24, 1-16
  54. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
  55. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 57-68 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6
  56. Martinez, K., & Schulkins, M. (1986). The H.M.S. Newton III: An onboard-fan-powered sail cart. The Physics Teacher, 24(7), 393
  57. Niaz, M. (1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: A dialecticcon-structivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 959-970 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320907
  58. Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M., & Lee, M. (2001). Analysis of the students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1219-1236 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049097
  59. Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers' intuitive conceptions of learning, motivation, and instruction: the role of motivation and epistemological beliefs, In B. Torff & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching the intuitive mind: Student and teacher learning (pp. 117-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  60. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constrains on conceptual change. In W. Schotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 137-159). Amsterdam : Pergamon
  61. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press
  62. Redish, F. R., Saul, J. M., & Sternberg, F. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66, 212-224 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18847
  63. Rutledge, C. T. (1986). The obvious answer is correct! The Physics Teacher, 24, 393 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2342060
  64. Sinatra, G. (2005). The 'warming trend' in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107-115 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_5
  65. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Intentional conceptual change: Erlbaum
  66. Wallingford (1986). Obvious?? The Physics Teacher, 24, 392