Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

How do Elementary School Students Perceive Science Classroom? : Developing a Framework for Cultural Analysis of Science Classroom

초등학생들이 생각하는 과학수업의 특징: 과학수업 문화 분석틀 개발을 위한 기초 연구

  • Received : 2015.05.27
  • Accepted : 2015.06.18
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purposes of this study are to investigate elementary students' perception of science classroom through an analysis of students' answer to an open-ended question and to suggest a framework for the analysis of science classroom culture, as the first step to develop an analysis tool for qualitative exploration of science classroom culture. We analyzed 571 responses and developed an analysis framework with six categories (i.e. major factors; power structure of a classroom community; focused domains of the science classroom; student concerns; atmosphere of science classroom; participation form). The details of the six categories can be summarized as follows: (1) major factors were revealed to be practical work, fun, teacher, community and others; (2) the power structure of classroom community was in the order of peer students, teacher, and individual student himself/herself; (3) the focused domains of the science classroom perceived by students were more about affective and behavioral domains than cognitive one; (4) major student concerns were teachers' teaching, having practical work, and the understanding of and the sharing of knowledge and opinions (5) science classroom atmosphere was noisy and pranky but fun and interesting; (6) the students participation forms were to be total participation or voluntary participation or cooperative practice. Through this study, not only suggesting the framework, but we could also get implications for the cultural aspects of science classroom based on the results of data analysis in this study.

본 연구의 목적은 과학수업 문화 분석을 위한 분석틀과 도구 개발을 위한 첫 단계로서, 초등학생들의 개방형 서술 응답 분석을 통하여 과학수업을 바라보는 초등학생들의 인식을 조사하고, 이에 기반으로 하여 과학수업 문화를 질적으로 분석할 수 있는 분석틀을 제안하고자 하는 것이다. 이를 위하여 서울 및 경기 소재 6개 학교의 초등학생 4학년과 6학년 총 571명이 작성한 응답을 3가지 방법으로 분석하여 분석틀의 6가지 범주(주요하게 드러나는 요인, 공동체의 권력구조, 과학 수업에서 중시하는 영역, 관심대상, 수업의 분위기, 참여형태)를 도출하였다. 각 범주에 따른 세부 분석틀 내용은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 과학수업에서 주요하게 드러나는 요인은 실험, 재미, 교사, 그리고 공동체로 나타났다. 둘째, 과학교실 공동체의 권력구조는 학급 친구, 교사, 개인으로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 셋째, 학생들이 과학수업에서 중시하는 영역은 인지적, 정의적, 행동적 영역으로 살펴볼 수 있다. 넷째, 과학교실 공동체에서 관심을 가지는 대상은 교사의 가르침, 실험, 지식과 의견의 이해, 지식과 의견의 공유로 나타났다. 다섯째, 과학수업 분위기의 형태는 장난치고 시끄러운 분위기와 재미있고 즐거운 분위기로 나타났다. 여섯째, 학생들의 참여 형태는 모든 구성원의 참여, 자율적인 참여, 협동적인 참여 형태로 나타났다. 본 연구의 이러한 결과는 학생들이 생각하는 과학수업의 모습과 그 특징에 바탕을 두어 과학수업 문화를 분석하는 질적인 분석틀을 제안할 수 있었다는 점에 의미가 있겠다. 또한 본 연구의 결과를 통해 과학수업의 문화적인 측면에서 나타난 시사점에 대하여 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
  2. Chang, J., Park, J., & Song, J. (2014). Features of the Sociocultural Context of Science Subject Teacher's Experiment Classes in Elementary School: Focusing on the Sociocultural Factors and Their Interactions. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.2.217
  3. Chen, Y., & Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 28(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301683
  4. Cho, H., & Choi, K. (2002). Science Education: Constructivist Perspectives. Journal of Korean Association Science Education, 22(4), 820-836.
  5. Cho, H., Yang, I., Jeong, J. -H., Shin, A. -K. (2008). Analysis of the Elementary School Students' Views about Lab-based Science Learning. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(2), 117-133.
  6. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1-20.
  7. Chun, E., Na, J., Joung, Y. J., & Song, J. (2015). Development and Application of the Measuring Instrument for the Analysis of Science Classroom Culture from the Perspective of 'Community of Practice'. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(1), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0131
  8. Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture. Washington, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED325914.pdf.
  9. Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  10. Fisher, D. L., & Waldrip, B. G. (1999). Cultural factors of science classroom learning environments, teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514990170107
  11. Fraser, B. J. (1998). 5.1 Science Learning Environments: Assessment, Effects and Determinants. In Fraser, B., Tobin, Kenneth (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (Volume 1), (pp. 527-564). Boston: Kluwer Academic. Retrieved from http://surveylearning.moodle.com/cles/papers/Handbook98.htm.
  12. Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In Fraser, Barry J., Tobin, Kenneth, McRobbie, & Campbell J. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191-1239). Dordrecht: Springer.
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<655::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-E
  14. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). London: Sage.
  15. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1991). Cultures and organisations-software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  16. Jeong, K. -S. & Jeong, S. -H. (2010). A description on the formation of an elementary classroom culture. Korean Journal of Anthropology of Education, 13(2), 1-27.
  17. Joung, Y. J., & Chun, E. (2014). Analysis on the Trends of Studies Related to 'Community of Practice' in Korea: Focused on Implications for Study of Elementary Science Education. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(3), 464-478. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.3.464
  18. Ju, E. Y., Lee, S. -Y., Kim, J. G., & Lee, J. J. (2009). Analysis of Images of Scientists and Science Learning Drawn by Third Grade Students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(1), 35-45.
  19. Kang, H., & Lee, J. (2010). Elementary School Students' Images of Science Class and Factors Influencing Their Formations. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(4), 519-531.
  20. Kim, H. B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514990170209
  21. Kim, M., & Cho, J. (2013). An Analysis of the Properties of Affective Achievement in Science Based on TIMSS and Science Teachers' Perception. Journal of Korean Association Science Education, 33(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.046
  22. Kim, Y., & Yang, I. -H. (2005). The Factor Analysis of Affecting Elementary Students' Science Attitude Change. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 24(3), 292-900.
  23. Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 403-407). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226/.
  24. Kwak, Y. (2005). Research on the Current Science Teaching Evaluation System and Directions for Improving Teaching Evaluation. Journal of Korean Association Science Education, 25(4), 313-325.
  25. Kwak, Y., Kim, C. -J., Lee, Y. -R., & Jeong, D. -S. (2006). Investigation on Elementary and Secondary Students' Interest in Science. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(3), 260-268.
  26. Kwak, Y., & Kim, J. (2003). Qualitative Research on Common Features of Best Practices in the Secondary School Science Classroom. Journal of Korean Association Science Education, 23(2), 313-325.
  27. Kwon, N. -J. (2005). Elementary School Students' Perceptions of Scientist and Socio-cultural Background towards Science. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 24(1), 59-67.
  28. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
  29. Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, (pp. 94-130). New York, NY: MacMillan.
  30. Lee, J, C., & Kim, B. K. (1998). Development of the Psychological Learning Environment Instrument Generated by Science Teachers in the Science Instruction. Journal of Korean Association Science Education, 18(3), 313-325.
  31. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386.
  32. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In McComas, W. F. (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 3-39). Springer Netherlands.
  33. Ministry of Education. (2011). Korean language curriculum. Retrieved from http://ncic.re.kr/mobile.dwn.ogf.inventoryList.do#.
  34. Schank, R, C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding in people and computers, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Schweingruber, H. A., Duschl, R. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press.
  36. Seo, H. -J., Park, J. -W., Won, J. -A., & Paik, S. -H. (2007). The Effects of Elementary School Students' Evaluation Regarding Science Classes on Teachers' Teaching Activities. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(1), 12-23.
  37. So, K. -C., & Kim, J. -G. (2001). the Development of Synthesized Korean Data Processor(SynKDP). Korean Historical Linguistics, 2, 257-384.
  38. Song, J., & Na, J. (2014). Meanings of 'Creativity and Integration' in Science Education and Comments on Science Classroom Culture. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 18(3), 827-845.
  39. Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. L. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science education, 87(4), 468-489. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10084
  40. Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive psychology, 9(1), 77-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90005-6
  41. Tobin, K. (2012). Sociocultural perspectives on science education. In Fraser, Barry J., Tobin, Kenneth, McRobbie, & Campbell J. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht: Springer.
  42. Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  44. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

  1. 초등교사의 과학수업에 대한 기대도와 실행도에 관한 학생의 인식 vol.36, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.3.255
  2. 네트워크 분석을 통한 국내 과학교육 질적 연구동향 분석 vol.10, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2017.10.3.290
  3. 모형 구성 참여 양상에서 나타나는 내성적인 초등학생의 인식적 감정 구성 vol.38, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.171
  4. 실행공동체로서의 과학교실이 가지는 구조적 요인 사이의 관계 탐색 -초등과학 실험수업의 모둠활동 사례를 중심으로- vol.38, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.3.331
  5. '계절별 낮과 밤의 길이'에 대한 초등 예비교사의 인식: 글과 그림에서 드러나는 설명 유형을 중심으로 vol.44, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2020.44.1.1
  6. 키워드 네트워크 분석을 통해 살펴본 초등학생이 인식하는 과학 학습 참여의 의미 vol.39, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.2.255
  7. 과학 탐구 수업에서 초등학생들이 바라는 과학 교사의 모습에 대한 요인 분석 vol.40, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2021.40.3.366