Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

The Development of Laboratory Instruction Classification Scheme

실험수업 유형 분류틀 개발

  • Published : 2006.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a classification scheme for laboratory instruction, which could occupy a central and distinctive role in science education. For this study, literature on laboratory instruction types were analyzed. Utilizing several of these theoretical frameworks, a Classification Scheme for Laboratory Instruction (CSLI), which clearly represents various features of laboratory instruction, was created. The developed CSLI consisted of two descriptors: one is the procedure for laboratory instruction, and the other is a way of approach. The procedure is either designed by the students or provided for them from an external source. A dichotomy also exists for the approach taken toward the activity: deductive or inductive. Validity was established for the CSLI. In addition, laboratory instruction according to CSLI was divided into four types: verification, discovery, exploratory, and investigation. Although this study demonstrated only limited features of laboratory instruction due to the absence of a field test, it serves as a model for more comprehensive studies.

이 연구는 과학교육에서 중요한 위치를 차지하고 있는 실험수업의 유형을 분류할 수 있는 틀을 개발하는데 목적이 있다. 분류틀을 개발하기 위해 실험의 유형에 관한 선행연구들을 분석하고, 실험수업의 다양한 특성들을 분명하게 나타내는 실험수업 분류틀(CSLI)을 생성하였다. 실험수업 분류틀(CSLI)은 실험수업에 따르는 절차와 접근방식의 두 개의 분류자로 구성하였다. 실험수업에 따르는 절차는 절차 제시의 주체에 따라 절차가 외부에서 공급되는 경우와 학생들에 의해 설계되는 학생생성으로 구분하였으며, 실험수업의 접근 방식은 개념 제시의 순서에 따라 연역적 접근과 귀납적 접근으로 이분법적으로 구분하였다. 두 개의 분류자에 의해 실험수업을 네 가지 유형 - 확인실험, 발견실험, 탐색실험, 연구실험 -으로 분류하고, 각 유형의 실험수업들의 특성과 장단점을 기술하였다. 개발한 실험수업분류틀에 대해서 과학교육전문가 6인의 타당도 검증을 거쳐 분류틀을 완성하였다. 개발된 실험수업 유형 분류틀이 현장검증의 부족으로 인해 실험수업의 다양한 특성을 제한적으로 나타낼지라도 보다 나은 연구를 위한 모델로서 공헌할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육인적자원부 (2001). 과학과 교육과정. 서울: 대한교과서주식회사
  2. 이상원 (2002). 실험의 두 역할 - 사실 획득과 이론 시험. 철학, 72, 273-294
  3. APU (1984). Science report for teachers: 2 The assessment framework age 13 & 15. Department of Education and Science: Welsh Office and Department of Education for Northern Ireland
  4. Brown, C. R. (1995). The effective teaching of biology. New York, USA: Longman Publishing Company
  5. Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel., & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Wasington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science
  6. Chin, C. (2003). Success with investigations. The Science Teacher, 70(2), 34-40
  7. Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1984). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. St. Louis : Times Mrror/Mosby College Pub
  8. Dana, L. (2001). The effects of the level of inquiry of situated secondary science laboratory activities on students' understanding of concepts and the nature of science, ability to use process skills and attitudes toward problem solving. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Lowell
  9. Domin, D S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543-547
  10. Friedler, Y., & Tamir, P. (1986). Teaching basic concepts of scientific research to high school students. Journal of Biological Education, 20, 263-270
  11. German, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475-499
  12. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham: Open University
  13. Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.). Practical science, (pp. 67-77). Miton Keynes: Open University Press
  14. Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of laboratory science. In A. Pickering (Ed.). Science and Culture, (pp. 29-64). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
  15. Hart, C, Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655-675
  16. Hegarty, E. H. (1978). Levels of scientific enquiry in university science laboratory classes: Implications for curriculum deliberations. Research in Science Education, 8(1), 45-57
  17. Hegarty, E. H. (Ed.) (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum. London: Routledge
  18. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212
  19. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33-40
  20. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135
  21. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217
  22. Hofstein, A, & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54
  23. Ivins, J. E. (1983). What are your labs really teaching'? The Science Teacher, 49, 56-59
  24. Kapenda, H. M, Kandjeo-marenga, H. U, Kasanda, C. D., & Lubben, F. (2002). Characteristics of practical work in science classrooms in Namibia. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(1), 53-65
  25. Kirschener, P. A, & Meester, M. A. M. (1988). The laboratory in higher education: Problems, premises and objectives. Higher Education, 17(1), 81-89
  26. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  27. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA Wadsworth Publishing Company
  28. Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, R. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, (pp. 94-128). New York: Macmillan
  29. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (1995). The demands of learning science concepts-issues of theory and practice. School Science Review, 76(277), 47-51
  30. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: historical perspectives and context for contemporary teaching. In K. Tobin., & B. Fraser (Ed.). International Handbook of Science Education (volume 1), (pp. 249-262). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic
  31. McComas, W. F. (2005). Enhancing the education of scientifically gifted students with inquiry instruction. Available at [www.usc.edu/dept/education/science-edu/Inquiry_Science_Instr2.pdf]
  32. Millar, R, Le Mare chal, J. F., & Buty, C. (1998). A map of the variety of labwork. Working paper 1. European Project: Labwork in science education (Contract No. ERB-SOE2-CT-95-2001). The European Commission
  33. Millar, R., Tiberghien, A, & Le Mare chal, J. F. (2002). Varieties of labwork: A way of profiling labwork tasks. In D. Psillos., & H. Niedderer (Ed.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory, (pp. 9-20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
  34. Morrow, C. A. (2003). Misconceptions scientists often have about the K-12 national science education standards. The Astronomy Education Review, 1(2), 85-94
  35. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, EC: National Academy Press
  36. Pella, M. O. (1961). The laboratory and science teaching. The Science Teaching, 28(5), 29-31
  37. Polman, J. L. (1999). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press
  38. Quaker, A., Strang, J., Swatton, P., & Taylor, R. (1990). Exploration. A way of learning science. Oxford: Blackwell Education
  39. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Ed.). The Teaching of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  40. Simpson, P. D., & Anderson, N. D. (1981). Science, students and schools. New York: Wiley
  41. Stannard, P. (1982). Evaluating laboratory performance. The Queensland Science Teacher, November
  42. Tamir, P. (1976). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. (Tech. Rep. 10). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center
  43. Tobin, K. (1986). Secondary science laboratory activities. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 199-211
  44. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science & Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418
  45. Wallace, C. S. (2004). An illumination of the roles of hands-on activities, discussion, text reading, and writing in constructing biology knowledge in seventh grade. School Science and Mathematics, 104(2), 70-78
  46. Wellington, J. J. (2000). Teaching and learning secondary science: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. London and New York: Routelge
  47. Welzel, M., Haller, K., Bandiera, M, Hammelev, D., Koumaras, P., Niedderer, H., Paulsen, A. C, Becu-Robinault, K., & Aufschnaiter, S. (1998). Teachers' objectives for labwork: Research tool and cross country results. Working paper 6. European project: Labwork in science education (Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme Project PL 95-2005). The European Commission
  48. Woolnough, B. E. (1994). Effective science teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press
  49. Woolnough, B. E., & Allsop, T. (1985). Practical work in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press