Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Characteristics of 8th Grade Students' Conclusions Presented in Self-Directed Scientific Inquiry Reports

8학년 학생들의 자기주도적 과학탐구 보고서에 제시된 결론의 특징

  • Received : 2009.02.23
  • Accepted : 2009.09.15
  • Published : 2009.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand characteristics of eighth graders' conclusions presented in their self-directed scientific inquiry reports. We developed a framework, Analysis of Conclusions of Self-Directed Scientific Inquiry, to analyze students' conclusions. We then compared the conclusions with the inquiry questions students generated to find out whether the questions affected students' conclusions. In addition, we analyzed students' responses from the survey about their perceptions of drawing conclusions. According to the results, the conclusions were characterized into two categories, i.e., scientific basic assumption and scientific explanation. Almost half of the students' conclusions fall under the scientific basic assumptions. Most of the scientific explanations were deductive explanations and inductive explanations. Then, the kinds of conclusions were affected by the inquiry questions because the scientific explanations were made more than the scientific basic assumptions in answering the inquiry questions. Some students couldn't recognize differences between conclusions and experiment results.

본 연구의 목적은 8학년 학생들의 자기주도적인 과학탐구 보고서에 제시되어 있는 결론의 특징을 이해하려는 것이다. 이를 위해 '자기주도적인 과학탐구의 결론 분석'이라는 틀을 개발하였으며, 이 분석틀을 사용하여 학생들의 결론을 분석하였다. 다음으로는 학생들의 결론을 그들이 탐구하기 위해 생성한 질문과 비교하여 질문이 결론에 영향을 주는지에 대해 조사하였다. 더불어 학생들이 탐구 활동을 하면서 결론을 도출할 때 겪는 어려움을 이해하기 위해 실시한 설문지의 응답을 분석하였다. 연구 결과에 의하면 결론은 대체로 과학의 기초적 가정과 과학적 설명으로 범주화되는데, 학생들 결론의 약 절반 정도는 과학의 기초적 가정에 해당하였다. 그리고 과학적 설명으로 제시된 결론은 대부분 연역추론에 의한 설명과 귀납추론에 의한 설명이었다. 그리고 질문이 탐구질문일 때 과학적 설명이 과학의 기초적 가정보다 많이 나타나는 것으로 보아 결론의 형태는 학생들이 생성한 질문의 영향을 받는 것을 알 수 있었다. 일부 학생들은 결론과 실험 결과가 차이가 있음을 인식하지 못하는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김광수, 1995, 논리와 비판적 사고. 철학과 현실사, 서울, 594 p
  2. 김국태, 2003, 실용논리학. 철학과 현실사, 서울, 277 p
  3. 김성도, 2006, 퍼스의 기호사상. 민음사, 서울, 333 p
  4. 김영필, 2001, 논리와 사고. 울산대학교 출판부, 울산, 307 p
  5. 권용주, 최상주, 박윤복, 정진수, 2003, 대학생들의 귀납적 탐구에서 나타난 과학적 사고의 유형과 과정. 한국과학교육학회지, 23, 286-298
  6. 박승재, 조희형, 1999, 교수-학습 이론과 과학교육. 교육과학사, 서울, 406 p
  7. 박준호, 2003, 논리와 논증의 이해. 한국문화사, 서울, 407 p
  8. 성태제, 2002, 타당도와 신뢰도. 학지사, 서울, 191 p
  9. 신미영, 2008, 8학년 학생들의 과학자율탐구에 나타난 질문, 방법설계, 데이터분석, 결론도출의 특징. 서울대학교 교육학박사학위논문, 252 p
  10. 양일호, 정진수, 권용주, 정진우, 허명, 오창호, 2006, 과학자의 과학지식 생성 과정에 대한 심층 면담 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 26, 88-98
  11. 오필석, 2007, 중등학교 지구과학 교사들의 과학적 설명: 논리적 형식과 담화적 특징 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 27, 37-49
  12. Bencze, J.L., 1996, Correlational studies in school science: Breaking the science-experiment-certainty connection. School Science Review, 78, 95-101
  13. Bowell, T. and Kemp, G., 2005, Critical thinking: A concise guide. Routledge, NY, USA, 321 p
  14. Chin, C., Brown, D.E., and Bruce, B.C., 2002, Studentgenerated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 521-549 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095249
  15. Copi, I.M., 1982, Informal Logic. Macmillan, NY, USA, 354 p
  16. Crawford, B.A., Saul, C.Z., Munford, D., and Friedrichsen, P., 2005, Confronting Prospective Teachers' Ideas of Evolution and Scientific Inquiry Using Technology and Inquiry-Based Tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 613-637 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20070
  17. Cuccio-Schirripa, S. and Steiner, H.E., 2000, Enhancement and Analysis of Science Question Level for middle School Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 210-224 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<210::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-I
  18. Duveen, J., Scott, L., and Solomon, J., 1993, Pupils' understanding of science: Description of experiments or 'A passion to explain'? School Science Review, 75, 19-27
  19. Flach, P.A. and Kakas, A.C., 2000, Abduction and Induction: Essays on their relation and integration. Kluwer Academic, Boston, USA, 309 p
  20. Germann, P.J., Odom, A.L., Aram, R., and Burke, G., 1996, Student Performance on Asking Question, Identifying Variables, and Formulating Hypotheses. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 192-201 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10224.x
  21. Graesser, A.C. and Person, N.K., 1994, Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031001104
  22. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A., 2000, Analyzing interpretive practice. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Calif, USA, 487-508
  23. Hempel, C.G., 1965, Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. The Free Press, NY, USA, 504 p
  24. Josephson, J.R. and Josephson, S.G., 1994, Abductive Inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 306 p
  25. Johnson, R.H. and Blair, J,A., 1980, The Recent Development of Informal Logic. In Blair, J.A. and Johnson, R.H. (ed.), Informal logic: The first international symposium. Edgepress, CA, USA, 3-28
  26. King, A., 1994, Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. american educational research journal, 31, 338-368 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031002338
  27. Krajcik, J., Blumentfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., and Fredricks, J., 1998, Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_3
  28. Magnani, L., 2001, Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, NY, USA, 205 p
  29. Martin, M., 1985, Concepts of science education: A philosophical analysis. University Press of America, MD, USA, 176 p
  30. Nagel, E., 1979, The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Routledge, London, UK, 618 p
  31. Salmon, W.C., 1989, Four decades of scientific explanation. University of pittsburgh Press, Minneapolis, USA, 234 p
  32. Sandoval, W.A. and Reiser, B.J., 2004, Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
  33. Sandoval, W.A., 2005, Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
  34. Trumbull, D.J., Bonney, R., and Grudens-Schuck, N., 2005, Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89, 879-900 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20081
  35. van Eemeren, F.H. and Grootendorst, R., 1991, Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. L. Erlbaum, N.J., USA, 236 p
  36. van Eemeren, F.H. and Grootendorst, R., 2004, A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 216 p
  37. Walton, D.N., 1987, Informal fallacies-towards a theory of argument criticisms. John Benjamins Publishing, Philadelphia, USA, 336 p
  38. Walton, D.N., 1996, Argument structure: A pragmatic theory. University of Toronto Press, Buffalo, USA, 304 p

Cited by

  1. Characteristics of Middle School Students' Open-Inquiry Report and Their Perceptions of Conducting Inquiry vol.56, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2012.56.3.371