Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Development and Application of Cognitive Scaffolding Tools for Enhancing the Integrated Science Process Skills of High School Students

고등학생들의 통합 탐구 기능 향상을 위한 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구 개발 및 적용

  • Received : 2019.05.22
  • Accepted : 2019.08.16
  • Published : 2019.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop cognitive scaffolding tools and to explore their effects on integrated science process skills of high school students. For this purpose, we developed cognitive scaffolding tools including one kind of classroom instruction for training integrated process skills and two kinds of individual learning materials that students can selectively study according to their level of inquiry ability. In addition, we developed hypothetico-deductive inquiry tasks as a tool to investigate the level of students on the integrated process skills for pre-test and post-test respectively. In order to verify the effectiveness of the cognitive scaffolding tools, we conducted inferential statistics on the pre-and post-tests of the experimental group and control group to examine statistical significance of students' inquiry level change depending on the usage of the cognitive scaffolding tools. We also produced Wrightmaps based on Rasch model to compare the change of inquiry ability depending on usage of the cognitive scaffolding tools. As a result, the experimental group using the cognitive scaffolding tools showed a significantly higher scores in all the components of integrated process skills namely, designing inquiry, collecting data, analyzing data, and forming conclusion than the control group. In addition, students who used cognitive scaffolding tools improved their inquiry ability and showed a distinct transition to higher level in each component of the integrated process skills. The results of this study suggest that high school students need cognitive scaffolding to alleviate or eliminate the functional barriers they face in conducting scientific inquiries.

이 연구의 목적은 고등학생들의 통합 탐구 기능 향상을 위한 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구를 개발하고, 그 적용 효과를 탐색하는 것이다. 이를 위해 문헌 연구 및 선행 연구 결과를 토대로 통합 탐구 기능 교육을 위한 수업용 자료 1종과 학생들이 자신의 탐구 능력 수준에 맞추어 선택적으로 학습할 수 있는 개별 학습용 자료 2종을 포함한 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구를 개발하였다. 또한, 통합 탐구 기능에 대한 학생들의 수준을 조사하기 위한 도구로 가설-연역적 탐구 형식으로 구성된 사전, 사후 검사용 탐구 과제를 1개씩 개발하였다. 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구의 효과를 검증하기 위하여 실험군과 대조군의 사전, 사후 검사에 대해 추리 통계를 실시하였다. 또한, 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구의 적용 여부에 따른 고등학생들의 통합 탐구 능력을 Rasch 모형에 따른 Wrightmap을 산출하여 비교하였고, 통합 탐구 기능의 각 요소에 대한 학생들의 수준 변화 양상을 확인하였다. 연구 결과, 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구를 사용했던 실험군은 대조군에 비해 탐구 설계, 자료 수집 및 변환, 자료 해석, 결론 도출 등 모든 평가 요소에서 유의미하게 높은 점수를 보였다. 또한, 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구를 활용했던 학생들은 전반적으로 통합 탐구 능력이 향상되었고, 통합 탐구 기능의 각 요소에서 높은 수준으로 뚜렷하게 변화되는 양상을 보여주었다. 이러한 연구 결과는 학생들이 과학 탐구를 수행하는 과정에서 직면하는 기능적 장벽을 완화 또는 제거하기 위해 인지적 스캐폴딩 도구를 적극적으로 활용할 필요가 있음을 시사한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 강원대학교

References

  1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washing, DC: Author.
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1983). Chapter 1: Science as inquiry: A desired state. In Penick, J. E.(ed.), Focus on excellence, volume 1 number 1: Science as inquiry. Washington, DC: NSTA.
  3. Alibali, M (2006). Does visual scaffolding facilitate students' mathematics learning? Evidence from early algebra. Northern Illinois University, Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center.
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.
  6. Bae, Y. (2009). The application of inquiry process skills in elementary science education. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 19(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.20972/kjee.19.2.200901.89
  7. Bean, T. W., & Patel Stevens, L. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940220142343
  8. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd Ed.). NY: Routledge.
  9. Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  10. Biological Science Curriculum Study, 4th ed. (2009). Biology teachers' handbook. Arlington, VA: NSTA press.
  11. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2015). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools: Developing fundamental knowledge and skill (Pearson eText with loose-leaf version, 8th ed.). NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
  12. Chin, C. (2007). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
  13. Cho, H., & Choi, G. (2006). Science teaching-learning and performance assessment. Seoul: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
  14. Cho, H., & Choi, G. (2008). Theory and practices of science education (2nd ed.). Seoul: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
  15. Chung, D., & Lee, K. (2008). Improving Effects of Students' Scientific Process Skills in the Science Instruction Reinforced Inquiry Process. Journal of Science Education, 33, 49-62.
  16. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer, Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
  17. Elena, B., & Deborah, L. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education(2nd Ed.). Merrill: Pearson Education, Inc.
  18. Germann, P. J., & Aram, R. J. (1996). Student performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 773-798. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<773::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-K
  19. Harlen, W. (2000). Teaching, learning and assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993044
  20. Harrell, P. E., & Bailer, J. (2004). Pass the mealworms, please: Using mealworms to develop science process skills. Science Activities, 41(2), 33-36.
  21. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  22. Hong, S., & Son, Y. (2011). A case study on development and application of the explicit teaching and learning strategy for comprehension of the middle school students' basic science process skills. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(4), 641-662. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.4.641
  23. Jumaat, N. F., & Tasir, Z. (2014). Instructional scaffolding in online learning environment: A meta-analysis. 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering Proceedings, 74-77.
  24. Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the scientific writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  25. Kim, S., Cha, H., & Kim, J. (2005). Development of experimental modules using everyday life materials to enhance science process skills. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(7), 754-764.
  26. Ko, J., & Kim, H. (2015). The development and application to program for elementary school six grade student's improvement basic inquiry skills with observation of cloud. Brain, Digital, & Learning, 5(2), 17-24.
  27. Ko, Y., & Jeong, E. (2014). The effects of explicit instruction using teaching-learning materials for improving middle school students' science process skills -Focused on "photosynthesis" unit-. Biology Education, 42(1), 16-31. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.1.16
  28. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity [KOFAC]. (2019). Developing Korean Science Education Standards for the Next Generation.
  29. Lee, D. (2011). Free inquiry in textbook. Seoul: Hanulimkids.
  30. Lee, D. (2012a). Basic process skills in textbook. Seoul: Hanulimkids.
  31. Lee, D. (2012b). Integrated process skills in textbook. Seoul: Hanulimkids.
  32. Lee, E., & Kang, S. (2012). Sub-component extraction of inquiry skills for direct teaching of inquiry skills. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 236-264. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.2.236
  33. Lee, H., Min, B., & Son, Y. (2012). Development and application of the explicit and reflective learning strategy for enhancement of the elementary school students' basic inquiry skills-Based on observation and classification-. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.1.095
  34. Lee, K., Lee, S., Kang, E., Kwon, G., Kim, M., Nam, G., Byeon, T., Lee, I., Lee, J., & Cho, Y. (2005). Guidelines for successful middle school science inquiry classes. Seoul National University Science Education Research Center.
  35. Lee, K., & Park, J. (2017). Exploring a learning progression for integrated process skills in earth science inquiry. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 38(3), 222-238. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2017.38.3.222
  36. Lee, J. (2009). Education⋅psychology⋅society research methodology. Gyeonggi: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
  37. Lee, Y., & Cho, H. (2015). Scientific inquiry. Gyeonggi: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
  38. Lenski, S. D., & Nierstheimer, S. L. (2002). Strategy instruction from a sociocognitive perspective. Reading Psychology, 23(2), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/027027102760351034
  39. Luft, J., Bell, R. L., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. VA: NSTA Press.
  40. Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present states, methodological features, and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.161
  41. Maeng, S., Lee, K., Park, Y., Lee, J., & Oh, H. (2014). Development and validation of a learning progression for astronomical systems using ordered multiple-choice items. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(8), 703-718. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.8.0703
  42. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
  43. Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Steirer, B. (1992). 'Scaffolding' learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the national curriculum project. London: Hodder and Stoughton for the National Curriculum Council, London.
  44. Metcalf, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In Jacobson, M. J. & Kozma, R. B. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced design for technologies of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Assoc.
  45. Michael J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
  46. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (1997). 7th Science curriculum (Notification No. 1997-15 of the Ministry of Education). Ministry of Education, Seoul, Korea.
  47. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum (Notification No. 2015-74 of the Ministry of Education). Ministry of Education, Seoul, Korea.
  48. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2018). Elementary science: Teacher's guide (Elementary school grades 3-4). Ministry of Education, Seoul, Korea.
  49. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development [MOEHR]. (2007). 2007 revised science curriculum(Notification No. 2007-79 of the MOEHR). Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, Seoul, Korea.
  50. Ministry of Education and Science Technology [MEST]. (2009). 2009 revised science curriculum(Notification No. 2009-41 of the MEST). Ministry of Education and Science Technology, Seoul, Korea.
  51. Ministry of Education and Science Technology [MEST], Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity [KOFAC], & Science Education Research Institute Korea National University of Education. (2009). Free inquiry instructional materials for elementary school 3rd and 4th grade(the general).
  52. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  53. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  54. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  55. Noh, T., Lee, J., Yang, C., Kang, S., & Kang, H. (2016). Investigation of learning progression for dissolution and solution concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(2), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0295
  56. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345-375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
  57. Park, J., & Lee, K. (2012). Exploring the components and functions of scaffolding in open inquiry through factor analysis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1204-1221. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1204
  58. Park, H., Son, Y., & Hong, Y. (2018). The latent profiles of student perception of inquiry activities and teacher feedback in science classrooms: Individual and school factors and affective characteristics. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 31(3), 557-582.
  59. Plummer, J. D. (2014). Spatial thinking as the dimension of progress in an astronomy learning progression. Studies in Science Education. 50(1), 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.869039
  60. Prince M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
  61. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. NY: Oxford University Press.
  62. Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
  63. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. ETR&D, 50(3), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026
  64. Selles-Martinez, J. (2004). International earth science olympiad: What to test and how to do so. Seoul Conference for the International Earth Science Olympiad Conference Proceedings, 136-142.
  65. Shim, K., Park, J., Lee, K., Son, J., Moon, H., Park, J., Bae, M., So, Y., Ahn, S., Lee, S., Jeon, B., & Cho, H. (2018). Science inquiry experiment. Seoul: Visang Education.
  66. Shin, J. (2011). Meta-analysis of the effects of lessons using a scaffolding strategy. The Journal of Elementary Education, 24(2), 25-46.
  67. Shin, D., Shin, J., & Kwon, Y. (2006). An analysis on the processes of observation teaching and the types of observation in elementary life science classes. Journal of the Korean Society of Elementary Science Education, 25(4), 339-351.
  68. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
  69. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3
  70. Terry L. D., & Diane E. (2010). Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: Positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 462-472. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-02-0011
  71. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  72. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  73. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
  74. Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit value. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
  75. Yang, H., & Kim, H. (2017). The Application Effect of Experimental Instruction Model based on Feedback Process in Middle School Science Class. School Science Journal, 11(2), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.11.2.201706.246
  76. Yang, I. (2010). Elementary science free inquiry. Gyeonggi: Book21 Aulbook.