Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지

Analyses of the Aims of Laboratory Activity, Interaction, and Inquiry Process within Laboratory Instruction in Secondary School Science

중등학교 과학 실험 수업에 대한 실험 목적.상호 작용.탐구 과정의 분석

  • Yang, Il-Ho (Department of Elementary Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Jeong, Jin-Woo (Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Kim, Young-Shin (Department of Biology Education, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Min-Kyung (Dongmyeong Middle School) ;
  • Cho, Hyun-Jun (Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education)
  • 양일호 (한국교원대학교 초등교육과) ;
  • 정진우 (한국교원대학교 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 김영신 (경북대학교 생물교육과) ;
  • 김민경 (강릉 동명중학교) ;
  • 조현준 (한국교원대학교 지구과학교육과)
  • Published : 2006.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze laboratory instructions in a secondary school science with an analysis instrument on science laboratory instruction. For its purpose, we used an instrument that analyzes three dimensions of the secondary laboratory instructions. This analysis instrument was composed of 3 categories (the aim of the laboratory activity, interaction, and inquiry process) which are spread into 20 sub-categories, and its validity was checked by four science educators with factor of 0.89. For its purpose, 21 sessions of lab instructions were video-recorded and transcribed. According to the results, in the aims category, the instructions mainly focused on two aims; acquiring the declarative knowledge and increasing attitudes toward science. In the interaction category, some of the observations made were that the teachers's questions could not gather the students' divergent thinking, their directive instructions were centered around themselves rather than giving opportunities for students to be centered within laboratory activities, and students' interaction were rarely shown. Therefore, interaction was classified as level I. In the inquiry process, presenting phenomenon or questionings about the subjects were little observed, and students' hypothesizing and predicting were almost nonexistent. Most of the activity designs within lab session were given from the teachers' directions or worksheets, and students solely focused on data collecting and recording. Hence, inquiry process were classified level I.

이 연구의 목적은 중등 학교 과학 실험 수업의 실태를 파악하기 위해 수업을 분석하는 것이다. 이를 위해 중등학교 과학 실험 수업을 세 범주로 분석하도록 개발된 분석 도구를 활용하였다. 이 분석 도구는 실험의 목적, 상호 작용, 탐구 과정 세 가지 영역에 20가지 평가 항목으로 구성되어 있으며, 4명의 과학 교육 전문가로부터 0.89의 타당도가 확보되었다. 수업 분석을 위하여 21차시의 실험 수업이 녹화되고 전사되었다. 전사된 프로토콜과 동영상을 바탕으로 실험 수업을 분석한 결과, 중등 학교 실험 수업은 실험 목적 측면에서 선언적 지식의 습득과 과학에 대한 태도의 향상에 집중되어 있었다. 상호 작용 측면은 교사의 발문이 학생들의 발산적 사고를 유도하지 못하고 있고 학생들에 의한 주도적인 실험 기회가 주어지는 대신 교사의 직접적 지도에 의해 실험 수업이 진행되고 있으며, 학생들의 토의 과정이 거의 나타나지 않는 등 상호 작용 I 수준으로 분석되었다. 탐구 과정은 학습 주제에 대한 현상 제시 및 문제 제기가 거의 관찰되지 않았다. 학생들의 가설 설정 활동이나 예상 활동도 대부분의 수업에서 관찰되지 않았으며, 실험 설계 부분은 활동지나 교사의 지시에 의해 주어지고 있었고, 학생들은 실험 결과 기록에만 집중되어 있어 탐구 과정 수준도 I 수준으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 곽영순, 김주훈, 2002, 좋은 수업방법에 대한 질적 분석: 과학과를 중심으로. 교육과정평가연구, 5(1), 207-220
  2. 권용주, 정진수, 박윤복, 강민정, 2003, 선언적 과학 지식의 생성과정에 대한 과학철학적 연구 -귀납적, 귀추적, 연역적 과정을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(3), 215- 228
  3. 김석민, 2006, 초.중등학교 및 대학교의 실험 수업 유형 분석. 한국교원대학교 석사학위 논문, 60 p
  4. 김영신, 2003, 예비 과학 교사가 탐구 점수표에 따라 분석한 현장 과학 수업. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(5), 561- 573
  5. 김호진, 곽대오, 성민웅, 2000, 중등학교 과학교사들의 학습 평가에 관한 실태조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(1), 101- 111
  6. 노태희, 김소희, 김경순, 2005, 중학교 과학 수업에서 학생들의 구조화된 상호작용을 유도하기 위한 상호동료교수 전략의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(4), 465-471
  7. 박수경, 2005, 과학영재학교 교수활동에 관한 학생인식 및 과학 수업에서 상호작용 유형. 한국지구과학회지, 26(1), 30-40
  8. 성태제, 2002, 타당도와 신뢰도. 학지사, 서울, 162 p
  9. 양일호, 정진우, 허명, 김영신, 김진수, 김민경, 최현동, 오 창호, 2005a, 과학 실험 수업 분석 도구 개발. 초등과학교육, 24(5), 504-517
  10. 양일호, 한기갑, 최현동, 오창호, 조현준, 2005b, 초등 초임 교사의 과학의 본성에 대한 신념과 과학 교수-학습 활 동과의 관련성, 초등과학교육, 24(4), 399-416
  11. 이근준, 정진우, 2004, 중등학교 과학실험수업의 탐구수준을 평가하기 위한 도구개발 및 적용. 한국지구과학회지, 25(7), 507-518
  12. 이지현, 남정희, 문성배, 2003, 실험실습법에 의한 수행평가가 중학생의 과학성취도 및 정의적 영역에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(1), 66-74
  13. 이혜원, 양일호, 조현준, 2005, 초.중학생의 관찰, 예상, 가설의 이해. 초등과학교육, 24(3), 236-241
  14. 이현영, 장상실, 성숙경, 이상권, 강성주, 최병순, 2002, 사회적 상호작용을 강조한 과학 탐구실험과정에서 학생- 학생 상호작용 양상 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(3), 660-670
  15. 조현준, 2006, 델파이 기법을 통한 실험목적 설정과 교사와 학생들의 인식 비교. 한국교원대학교 석사학위 논문, 78 p
  16. 최경희, 박종윤, 최병순, 남정희, 최경순, 이기순, 2004, 중학교 과학 수업에서 교사와 학생의 언어적 상호작용 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1039-1048
  17. 최옥자, 김효남, 백성혜, 2000, 초등학교 5학년 자연과 실험 수업에 대한 문화기술적 연구. 한국초등과학교육학회지, 18(2), 35-46
  18. Adsit, D.J. and London, M., 1997, Effects of hypothesis generation on hypothesis testing in rule discovery tasks. Journal of General Psychology, 124(1), 19-35 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309709595505
  19. Baird, J.R., 1990, Metacognition, purposeful inquiry and conceptual change. In Hegarty-Hazel, E. (eds.), The Student laboratory and the science curriculum. Routledge, London, 183-200
  20. Baird, J.R., 1998, A view of quality teaching. In Fraser, B.J. and Tobin, K.G. (eds.), International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 153-168
  21. Barron, B.J.S., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., and Bransford, D.J., 1998, Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Science, 7, 271-311 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_2
  22. Bekalo, S. and Welford, G., 2000, Practical activity in Ethiopian secondary physical sciences: implications for policy and practice of the match between the intended and implemented curriculum. Research Papers in Education, 15 (2), 185-212 https://doi.org/10.1080/026715200402498
  23. Chang, H.P. and Lederman, N.G., 1994, The effect of levels of cooperation with physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 167-181
  24. Chin, C., 2003, Success with investigations. The Science Teacher, 70 (2), 34-40
  25. Chinn, C.A. and Malhotra, B.A., 2002, Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86 (2), 175-218 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  26. Clough, M.P. and Clark, R., 1994, Cookbooks and constructivism: A better approach to laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 61 (2), 34-37
  27. Driver, R., 1995, Constructivist Approaches to science teaching. In Steffe, L.P. and Gale, J. (eds.), Constructivism in education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 385-400
  28. Dunbar, K., 1999, Scientific thinking and its development. In Wilson, R. and Keil, F. (eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, 730-733
  29. Gall, M.D., 1984, Syntheses of research on teacher's questioning. Educational Leadership, 42 (3), 40-47
  30. Garnett, P.J., Garnett, P.J., and Hacking, M.W., 1995, Refocusing the chemistry lab: a case for laboratory-based investigations. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41, 26-32
  31. Gunstone, R.F., 1991, Reconstructing theory from Practical experience. In Woolnough, B.E. (ed.), Practical Science. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 67-77
  32. Gupta, V., 2001, Aims of laboratory teaching. Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning, 4 (1), 1-3
  33. Harwood, W.S., Reiff, R., and Phillipson, T., 2002, Scientist' conceptions of scientific inquiry: Voices from the front. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, 1-32
  34. Hodson, D., 1998, Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In Wellington, J.J. (eds.), Practical work in school science. Routledge, N.Y., 93-108
  35. Hofstein, A., 2004, The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5 (3), 247-264 https://doi.org/10.1039/b4rp90027h
  36. Hofstein, A., Shore, R., and Kipnis, M., 2004, Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47-62 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070342
  37. Johnstone, A.H. and Al-Shuaili, A., 2001, Learning in the laboratory: Some thoughts from the literature. University chemistry education, 5 (2), 42-51
  38. Keys, W.C., Hand, B., Vaughn, P., and Collins, S., 1999, Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065- 1084 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  39. Klahr, D. and Dunbar, K., 1988, Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48 https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9
  40. Lawson, A.E., 1995, Science teaching and the development of thinking. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, 624 p
  41. McComas, W.F., 1999, Research on curriculum, teaching, and learning: The laboratory environment: An ecological perspective. Science Education International, 8 (2), 12-16
  42. McComas, W.F. and Olson, J.K., 1998, The nature of science in international science education standard documents. In McComas, W.F. (ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 41-52
  43. Millar, R., Le Marechal, J.-F., and Tiberghien, A., 1998, A map of the variety of labwork. Working Paper 1 from the European project Labwork in Science Education (Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme, Project PL 95-2005)
  44. Mortimer, E. and Scoot, P., 2000, Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In Miller, R., Leach, J. and Osborne, J. (eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Open University Press, Buckingham, 126-142
  45. Nattiv, A., 1994, Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 94 (3), 285-297 https://doi.org/10.1086/461767
  46. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press. Washington, DC
  47. Roth, W.M. and Boutonne, S., 1999, One class, many world. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (1), 59-75 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290831
  48. Solomon, J., 1999, Envisionment in practical work: helping pupils to imagine concepts while carrying out experiments. In Leach, J. and Paulsen, A. (eds.), Practical work in school science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 60-74
  49. Swain, J., Monk, M., and Johnson, S., 1999, A comparative study of attitudes to the aims of practical work in science education in Egypt, Korea and the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (12), 1311- 1324 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290093
  50. Tobin, K.G., 1990, Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.x
  51. Wellington, J.J., 1998, Practical work in school science: Time for re-appraisal. In Wellington, J.J. (ed.), Practical work in science education: Which way now? Routledge, London, 3-15
  52. Wilson, J.T., 1974, Processes of scientific inquiry: A model for teaching and learning. Science Education, 58 (1), 127-133 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730580118