Journal of Science Education (과학교육연구지)

Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University (경북대학교 과학교육연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Roles and Importance of Critical Evidence (CE) and Critical Resource Models (CRMs) in Abductive Reasoning for Earth Scientific Problem Solving

지구과학 문제 해결을 위한 귀추적 추론에서 결정적 증거와 결정적 자원 모델의 역할과 중요성

  • Received : 2017.10.17
  • Accepted : 2017.12.20
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze undergraduate students' reasoning for solving a problem about a rock and investigate the roles and importance of critical evidence (CE) and critical resource models (CRMs) in abductive reasoning. Participants were 20 senior undergraduate students enrolled in a science major course in a university of education. They were asked to abductively infer geologic processes of sedimentary rocks having a lot of holes and represent them with models. Their reasoning were analyzed according to a scheme for modeling-based abductive reasoning. As a result, successful student reasoning was characterized by using a diversity of grains and lots of holes as CE, activating the sedimentary rock formation and weathering as CRMs, and combining the CRMs into a scientifically sound explanatory model (SSEM). By contrast, in the reasoning unsuccessful in proposing a SSEM, students activated the igneous rock (basalt) formation and deposition as resource models (RMs) based on the evidence of the holes in the rocks and diverse grains, respectively, and used the RMs to construct their own explanatory models (EMs). It was suggested that to construct SSEMs to solve earth scientific problems about rocks, students need to know what could be CE in a particular problem situation, take an integrative or systemic approach to a rock problem, use multiple RMs, and evaluate RMs or EMs in light of evidence.

본 연구의 목적은 암석에 관한 문제를 해결하는 대학생들의 사고 과정을 분석하여 지구과학의 귀추적 추론에서 결정적 증거(CE)와 결정적 자원 모델(CRM)의 역할과 중요성을 살펴보는 것이었다. 한 교육대학교에서 과학 심화 전공 과목을 수강하는 20명의 4학년 학생들이 연구에 참여하였다. 이들에게 많은 구멍이 발달한 퇴적암의 지질학적 과정을 귀추적으로 추론하여 모델로 나타내게 하고, 그 과정을 모델링 중심의 귀추적 추론에 관한 도식에 따라 분석하였다. 그 결과, 문제를 성공적으로 해결한 학생들의 추론은 다양한 알갱이와 많은 구멍을 CE로 삼아 퇴적암의 생성 과정과 풍화 작용을 CRM으로 각각 활성화하고 이들을 결합하여 과학적으로 타당한 설명 모델(SSEM)을 구성하는 특징이 있었다. 반면 문제 암석에 관하여 SSEM을 제안하지 못한 추론에서는 학생들이 많은 구멍이라는 증거로부터 화성암(현무암)의 생성 과정을, 다양한 알갱이라는 증거로부터 퇴적 작용을 자원 모델(RM)로 활성화하고, 이들로부터 자신들의 설명 모델(EM)을 구성하였다. 학생들이 SSEM을 구성하여 암석에 관한 지구과학 문제를 수월하게 해결하기 위해서는 문제 상황에 맞는 CE가 무엇인지 알고, 암석의 특징에 관하여 통합적 또는 시스템적으로 접근하며, 복수의 RM을 활용하고, 증거에 비추어 RM이나 EM을 평가할 필요가 있음을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ault, C. R., Jr. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189-212. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<189::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-O
  2. Ault, C. R. Jr., & Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94(6), 1092-1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20398
  3. Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
  4. Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15, 92-96.
  5. Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  6. Dodick, J., Argamon, S., & Chase, P. (2009). Understanding scientific methodology in the historical and experimental sciences via language analysis. Science & Education, 18, 985-1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9146-6
  7. Dove, J. E. (1996). Student teacher identification of rock types. Journal of Geoscience Education, 44, 266-269. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-44.3.266
  8. Ford, D. J. (2005). The challenges of observing geologically: Third graders’ descriptions of rock and mineral properties. Science Education, 89, 276-295. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20049
  9. Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. GSA Bulletin, 107(8), 960-968. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1995)107<0960:GRGAAI>2.3.CO;2
  10. Frodeman, R. (2003). Geo-logic: Breaking ground between philosophy and the earth sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
  11. Gray, R. (2014). The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education, 98(2), 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21098
  12. Jeong, J.-W., Lim, C.-H., & Lee, Y.-B. (1994). Elementary school children’s conceptions on rock. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 13(1), 1-17.
  13. Kee, W. S., Kim, B. C., & Lee, Y.-N. (2006). Sedimentary environments and structural evolution of the Cretaceous Namyang basin, Korea. Journal of the Geological Society of Korea, 42(3), 329-351.
  14. Kleinhans, M. G., Buskes, C. J. J., & de Regt, H. W. (2005). Terra incognita: Explanation and reduction in earth science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 19(3), 289-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590500462356
  15. Kortz, K. M., & Murray, D. P. (2009). Barriers to college students learning how rocks form. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 300-315. https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3544282
  16. Kusnick, J. (2002). Growing pebbles and conceptual prisms: Understanding the source of student misconceptions about rock formation. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-50.1.31
  17. Kwon, D. H. (2006). Korean landform. Paju: Hanulbooks.
  18. Miall, A. D., & Miall, C. E. (2004). Empiricism and model-building in stratigraphy: Around the hermeneutic circle in the pursuit of stratigraphic correlation. Stratigraphy, 1(1), 27-46.
  19. Moon, B. C., Jeong, J.-W., & Chung, C. H. (2005). The classifying ability of the igneous rocks with naked eyes for preservice science teachers. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 26(7), 630-639.
  20. Moon, B. C., Lee, G., & Kim, H. (2009). The characteristics of observing and inferring of elementary gifted students in inquiry activities of the strata. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(4), 476-486.
  21. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  22. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  23. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  24. Oh, P. S. (2011). Characteristics of abductive inquiry in earth science: An undergraduate case study. Science Education, 95, 409-430. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20424
  25. Oh, P. S. (2016). Roles of models in abductive reasoning: A schematization through theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 551-561. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0551
  26. Oh, P. S., & Kim, C.-J. (2005). A theoretical study on abduction as an inquiry method in earth science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(5), 610-623.
  27. Park, K.-J., & Cho, K.-S. (2014). The classification ability with naked eyes according to the understanding level about rocks of pre-service science teachers. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 35(6), 467-483. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2014.35.6.467
  28. Raab, T., & Frodeman, R. (2002). What is it like to be a geologist? A phenomenology of geology and its epistemological implications. Philosophy & Geography, 5(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770120116840
  29. Raia, F. (2005). Students’ understanding of complex dynamic systems. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 297-308. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.297
  30. Raymond, L. A. (2002). Petrology: The study of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  31. Seo, D. W. (2004). An analysis of observations and hypotheses of elementary school students on sedimentary rocks and geological structures in field courses. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 25(7), 586-594.
  32. Stofflett, R. T. (1993). Preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge of rocks and their formation. Journal of Geoscience Education, 41, 226-230.
  33. Sung, J. Y., & Oh, P. S. (in press). Sixth grade students' content-specific competencies and challenges in learning the seasons through modeling. Research in Science Education.
  34. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). Science Curriculum. Sejong, Korea: Author.
  35. Turner, C. (2000). Messages in stone: Field geology in the american west. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), Earth matters: The earth sciences, philosophy, and the claims of community (pp. 51-62). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  36. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2003). Tracing young children’s scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 33(4), 433-465. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000005250.04426.67
  37. Wee, S. M., Cho, H., Kim, J. S., & Kim, Y. J. (2007). Characteristics of high school students’ conceptual understanding about minerals and rocks. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 28(4), 415-430. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2007.28.4.415

Cited by

  1. 지구과학의 탐구 방법으로서 '복수 작업가설의 방법'의 특징에 관한 탐색적 연구 vol.39, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5467/jkess.2018.39.5.501
  2. Features of Modeling-Based Abductive Reasoning as a Disciplinary Practice of Inquiry in Earth Science : Cases of Novice Students Solving a Geological Problem vol.28, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00058-w
  3. 문제의 구성을 강조한 프로그램에서 나타난 탐구 문제와 과학적 추론의 관련성 탐색 -삼투 현상 탐구 활동을 중심으로- vol.40, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.1.77