Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

An Investigation of the Characteristics of Analogs Generated by High School Students on Ionic Bonding: A Comparison of Characteristics of Analogs Depending on Their Cognitive Variables

고등학생이 이온 결합에 대해 생성한 비유의 특징 분석 -학생의 인지적 특성에 따른 비유의 특징 비교-

  • Received : 2016.11.21
  • Accepted : 2017.01.03
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the characteristics of analogs generated by high school students to explain ionic bonding in the perspectives of the number of analogs, the understanding of mapping, and the source and type of analogs. We also compared the results by students' conceptual understanding, logical thinking ability, and analogical reasoning ability. Participants in this study were 395 11th graders in Seoul. The results of the study showed that the higher the conceptual understanding, the logical thinking ability, and the analogical reasoning ability, the more the students generated the analogs. The understanding of mapping was related to logical thinking ability and analogical reasoning ability. It is noteworthy that the sources of analogs differed only depending on their conceptual understanding of the target concept among the cognitive variables studied. Students who had higher conceptual understanding also generated analogs from more diverse sources. Some types of the generated analogs were related to the cognitive variables. For examples, the students who had higher conceptual understanding and logical thinking ability generated more verbal/pictorial analogs. The types of analogs were not related to cognitive variables in terms of artificiality, abstraction, and systemicity. Educational implications of these findings were discussed.

이 연구에서는 고등학교 학생들이 이온 결합에 대해 생성한 비유의 특징을 비유 생성 개수와 대응 관계 이해도, 비유의 소재와 유형의 측면에서 분석하고, 이 결과를 학생들의 개념 이해도와 논리적 사고력, 비유 추론 능력에 따라 비교하였다. 서울특별시에 소재한 5개 고등학교에 재학 중인 2학년 학생 395명이 연구에 참여하였다. 연구 결과, 개념 이해도, 논리적 사고력, 비유 추론 능력이 높을수록 학생들은 비유를 더 많이 생성하는 것으로 나타났다. 생성한 비유에 대한 대응 관계 이해도는 논리적 사고력과 비유 추론 능력만 관계가 있었다. 학생들이 비유를 생성하기 위해 활용하는 소재는 조사한 인지적 특성 중 목표 개념에 대한 이해도에 따라서만 다르게 나타났다. 또한, 개념 이해도가 높을수록 다양한 소재를 활용하여 비유를 생성하였다. 학생들이 생성한 비유의 유형은 일부 인지적 특성과 관련이 있었다. 예를 들어, 개념 이해도와 논리적 사고력이 높은 학생들이 글과 그림을 모두 사용한 비유를 더 많이 생성하였다. 작위성과 추상도, 체계성의 측면에서 비유의 유형은 인지적 특성과 관련이 없었다. 이상의 결과를 바탕으로 교육적 함의를 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2011). Investigating and theorizing discourse during analogy writing in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 771-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20428
  2. Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211580
  3. BouJaoude, S., & Tamim, R. (2008). Middle school students’ perceptions of the instructional value of analogies, summaries and answering questions in life science. Science Educator, 17(1), 72-78.
  4. Byun C. S., & Kim, H. (2010). The effects of student-centered instruction using analogy for middle school students’ learning of the photosynthesis concept. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 304-322.
  5. Choi, S. Y., Lee, E. J., & Kang, H. K. (2006). The effects of the visual-analogical learning on student creativity and science achievement in elementary school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(2), 167-176.
  6. Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000276712
  7. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563
  8. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320306
  9. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
  10. Fensham, P. (1975). Concept formation. In Daniels, D. J. (Ed.), New movements in the study and teaching of chemistry (pp. 199-217). London: Temple Smith.
  11. Fogwill, S. (2010). Student co-generated analogies and their influence on the development of science understanding. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Technology Sydney.
  12. Haglund, J. (2013). Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 35-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.801119
  13. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884
  14. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
  15. James, M. C., & Scharmann, L. C. (2007). Using analogies to improve the teaching performance of preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 565-585. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20167
  16. Kang, H. (2011). Comparison of characteristics of analogies on saturated solution generated by elementary school teachers, general and science-gifted students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(3), 305-314.
  17. Kang, H., & Cheon, J. (2010). Characteristics, mapping understanding, mapping errors, and perceptions of student-generated analogies by elementary school students' approaches to learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(5), 668-680.
  18. Kim, D. (2008). The effects of applying instruction using high school students' self-generated analogies for concepts in genetics. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(5), 424-437.
  19. Kim, K., Choi, E., Cha, J., & Noh, T. (2006). The effect of an instruction using generating analogy on students' conceptual understanding in middle school science concept learning. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(4), 338-345. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.4.338
  20. Kim, K., Hwang, S., & Noh, T. (2008). An investigation of the types of student-generated analogies, the mapping understanding, and the mapping errors in concept learning on the reaction rate with generating analogy. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 52(4), 412-422. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2008.52.4.412
  21. Kim, Y., Moon, S., & Noh, T. (2009). An investigation of the types of analogies generated by science-gifted student, mapping errors on the chromatography, and the perceptions on generating analogy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(8), 861-873.
  22. Kim, Y., & Park, H. (2000). Students' understanding about the analogies for physics concepts used in korean middle school science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(3), 411-420.
  23. Kwon, H., Choi, E., & Noh, T. (2003). Analysis of the analogies on three states of matter generated by middle school students. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 47(3), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2003.47.3.265
  24. Lancor, R. A. (2014). Using student-generated analogies to investigate conceptions of energy: A multidisciplinary study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.714512
  25. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R
  26. Mayo, J. A. (2001). Using analogies to teach conceptual applications of developmental theories. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14(3), 187-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720530126292
  27. Middleton, J. L. (1991). Student-generated analogies in biology. American Biology Teacher, 53(1), 42-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449212
  28. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2012). Students' pre- and post-teaching analogical reasoning when they draw their analogies. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 429-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.593202
  29. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2013). Science teachers' analogical reasoning. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1689-1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9328-8
  30. Noh, T., & Kwon, H. (1999). A study on science teachers' practices and perceptions of using analogies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(4), 665-673.
  31. Noh, T., Kwon, H., & Lee, S. (1997). The effect of an instruction using analog systematically in middle school science class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 17(3), 323-332.
  32. Noh, T., Yang, C., & Kang, H. (2009). Characteristics of student-generated analogies, mapping understanding, and mapping errors on saturated solution of scientifically-gifted and general elementary students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(3), 292-303.
  33. Nottis, K. E. K., & McFarland, J. (2001). A comparative analysis of pre-service teacher analogies generated for process and structure concepts. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(4).
  34. Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: another way of knowing?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<1::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2
  35. Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1983). The construction of a group assessment of logical thinking (GALT). In th annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, Texas, April (pp. 5-8).
  36. Spier‐Dance, L., Mayer‐Smith, J., Dance, N., & Khan, S. (2005). The role of student‐generated analogies in promoting conceptual understanding for undergraduate chemistry students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500266401
  37. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers' analogical explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310304
  38. Wong, E. D. (1993a). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300405
  39. Wong, E. D. (1993b). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-1272. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301008
  40. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 41-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323662
  41. Zook, K. B., & Maier, J. M. (1994). Systematic analysis of variables that contribute to the formation of analogical misconceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 589-600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.4.589