Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

The Effects of Drawing and Analyzing Pictures in Concept Learning of the Particulate Nature of Matter: A Comparison Based on Student Visual Learning Style

물질의 입자 개념 학습에서 그림 그리기와 그림 분석하기의 효과: 시각적 학습양식에 따른 비교

  • Published : 2006.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Students have often experienced difficulties in understanding the concept of the particulate nature of matter despite its importance in chemistry. Although various instructional methods have been suggested for teaching this concept, systematic studies have been rarely conducted. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of drawing and analyzing pictures. Three classes of 7th graders at a coed middle school in Seoul were assigned to the control group, the drawing group, and the analyzing group, respectively. Students were taught about the three states of matter and the motion of molecules for 8 class periods. The instructional effects on student conception, achievement, and science learning motivation were investigated by student visual learning styles. Results revealed that the scores of a conceptions test and a science learning motivation test for both the drawing group and the analyzing group were higher than those for the control group. Additionally, the scores of the science learning motivation test were also found to be higher for students with a more visual learning style than their counterparts.

학생들은 화학에서 입자 개념의 중요성에도 불구하고 이를 어려워한다. 이에 여러 연구자들이 이 개념에 대한 효과적인 교수 방법을 제안하였으나, 체계적인 연구는 거의 이루어지지 않았다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 학생들이 입자 개념을 학습할 때 그림 그리기와 그림 분석하기 방법을 도입한 수업의 효과를 조사하였다. 서울시 남녀 공학 중학교 1학년 세 학급을 통제 집단과 그림 그리기 집단, 그림 분석하기 집단으로 선정하여 물질의 세 가지 상태와 분자의 운동 단원에 대하여 총 8차시 동안 수업을 실시하였다. 학생들의 시각적 학습양식에 따라 개념 이해도, 학업 성취도, 과학 학습 동기에 대한 교수 방법의 효과를 조사하였다. 연구 결과, 그리기 집단과 그림 분석하기 집단의 개념 이해도, 과학 학습 동기 점수가 통제 집단에 비해 높았다. 또한 시각적 학습양식 선호 학생들의 과학학습 동기 점수가 비선호 학생들보다 높았다.

Keywords

References

  1. 노태희, 유지연, 한재영 (2003). 분자 수준에서의 그림 그리기를 활용한 수업의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(6), 609-616
  2. 유승아, 구인선, 김봉곤, 강대호 (1999). 기체의 성질에 대한 중, 고등학생들의 오개념에 관한 연구, 대한화학회지, 43(5), 564-577
  3. De Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 657-664
  4. Dunn, R, Griggs, S. A, Olson, J., Beasley, M, & Gorman, B. S. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362
  5. Edens, K M, & Potter, E. F (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135-144
  6. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Schrader, C. (1987). The particle nature of matter approach: Its effectiveness on chemistry achievement. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Washington, DC
  7. Glynn, S. (1997). Drawing mental models. The Science Teacher, 64(1), 30-32
  8. Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53
  9. Hair, J. F, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. NJ Prentice-Hall
  10. Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., & Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words- Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 677-681
  11. Jonassen, O. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum
  12. Keller, J. M. (1993). IMMS: Instructional material motivation survey. Florida State University
  13. Keller, J. M., & Subhiyah, R. (1993). Course interest survey. Florida State University
  14. Kirby, J. R., Moore, P. J., & Schofield, N. J. (1988). Verbal and visual learning styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(2), 169-184
  15. Lin, H., Cheng, H., & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment of students and teachers' understanding of gas laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 235-238
  16. Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaxer (Ed.) Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 253-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  17. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726
  18. Noh, T., & Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217
  19. Quinn, R. (1994). The New York State compact for learning and learning styles. Learning Styles Network Newsletter, 15(1), 1-2
  20. Snowman, J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1975). A comparison of pictorial and written adjunct aids in learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 307-311
  21. Stein, M., McNair, S., & Butcher, J. (2001). Drawing on student understanding: Using illustrations to invoke deeper thinking about animals. Science and Children, 38(4), 18-22
  22. Trend, R., Everett, L., & Dove, J. (2000). Interpreting primary children's representations of mountains and mountainous landscapes and environments. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(1), 85-112
  23. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-140
  24. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer
  25. Wu, H. -K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842
  26. Wu, H-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492