Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

A Critical Review of the Skill-Based Approach to Scientific Inquiry in Science Education

과학 교육에서 기능 중심의 과학 탐구에 대한 비판적 고찰

  • Received : 2020.02.17
  • Accepted : 2020.04.06
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to critically review the skill-based approach to scientific inquiry in science education and to explore the meaning of science practices that are emphasized in recent science education reform movement. An extensive review of relevant literature was carried out, and the results were summarized according to the detailed themes of the study. In the skill-based approach of which Science-A Process Approach (SAPA) is a representative example, science process skills were presented as hierarchically connected with one another, they were believed to be transferable or generalizable, and science learning through discovery was stressed. These points of view are, however, contradicted with those of the modern philosophy of science which suggests the theory-laden nature of using the skills. The skill-based view has also been criticized by the fact that the use of inquiry skills is content-specific or context-dependent and that science theories or principles cannot be discovered by induction. In contrast, the recent view understands science practices holistically, emphasizes the diverse ways of doing the practices which vary with different contents or contexts, and considers student ideas importantly in the science classroom. The findings of this study can contribute to the development of a new science curriculum by providing implications for establishing a consistent view on scientific inquiry.

본 연구의 목적은 과학 탐구에 대한 기능 중심의 접근에 대해 비판적으로 살펴보고 최근 과학 교육 개혁에서 강조되고 있는 과학적 실천의 의미를 시험적으로 탐색하는 것이었다. 이를 위하여 관련 문헌들을 수집하여 고찰하였으며, 그 결과를 세부 주제에 따라 정리하였다. Science-A Process Approach (SAPA)로 대표되는 기능 중심의 접근에서는 과학 탐구 기능들을 위계적으로 연계하여 제시하고, 이들은 전이성 또는 일반화 가능성이 높다고 주장하였으며, 발견을 통한 과학 학습을 강조하였다. 하지만 이러한 입장은 기능의 사용에 이론이 적재되어 있다는 현대 과학 철학의 관점과 상충되었으며, 탐구에서 사용되는 기능들이 내용-특이적 또는 맥락-의존적이라는 사실과 추상적인 과학 이론이나 원리는 귀납적으로 발견될 수 없다는 점에서 비판을 받아 왔다. 이와는 달리 과학적 실천을 강조하는 최근의 입장에서는 과학적 실천을 총체적인 행위로 이해하고, 그것이 전개되는 양상은 내용이나 맥락에 따라 다르다는 점을 강조하며, 과학 수업에서도 학생의 아이디어를 중요하게 고려하고자 한다. 이러한 연구 결과는 과학 탐구에 관한 일관된 관점을 정립하는 데 시사점을 제공함으로써 새로운 과학 교육과정 개발에 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. AAAS Commission on Science Education (1961). Science teaching in elementary and junior high schools. Science, 133, 2019-2024. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.133.3469.2019
  2. AAAS Commission on Science Education (1971). The AAAS project: Science-A Process Approach. In E. Victor & M. S. Lerner (Ed.), Readings in science education for the elementary school (2nd ed., pp. 451-462). New York: The Macmillan Company.
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1967). Science-A Process Approach, Part A, Description of the program. New York: Xerox.
  4. Ault, C. R. Jr. (2015). Challenging science standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  5. 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, 1092-1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20398
  6. Ausubel, D. P. (1964/1969). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. In H. O. Andersen (Ed.), Readings in science education for the secondary school (pp. 97-113). London, UK: The Macmillan Company.
  7. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004499
  8. Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 Education. Science Teacher, 78(9), 34-40.
  9. Chang, H. (2014). Epistemic activities and systems of practice: Unit of analysis in philosophy of science after the practice turn. In L. Soler, S. Zwart, M. Lynch, & V. Israel-Jost (Eds), Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science (pp. 67-79). New York, NY: Routledge.
  10. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  11. Erduran, S. (2015). Introduction to the focus on scientific practices. Science Education, 99(6), 1023-1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21192
  12. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
  13. Fields, D. (1996). The impact of Gagne's theories on practices. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 794)
  14. Finley, F. N. (1983). Science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200105
  15. Ford, M. (2008). 'Grasp of practice' as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7
  16. Ford, M. (2015). Educational implications of choosing "practice" to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188
  17. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001001
  18. Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of "hands-on" and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21488
  19. Gagne, R. M. (1965). Psychological issues in Science-A Process Approach. AAAS Commission on Science Education (Ed.), The psychological bases of Science-A Process Approach (pp. 1-8). Washington, D.C.: The Commission.
  20. Gagne, R. M. (1966a). Elementary science: A new scheme of instruction. Science, 151(3706), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.151.3706.49
  21. Gagne, R. M. (1966b). Varieties of learning and the concept of discovery. In L. S. Shulman & E. R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 135-150). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
  22. Gagne, R. M. (1973). Learning and instructional sequence. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 3-33). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
  23. 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
  24. Ha, H., & Kim, H.-B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0063
  25. Heo, J., & Lee, K. (2018). A proposal of curriculum and teaching sequence for seasonal change by exploring a learning progression. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 39(3), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.3.260
  26. Hodson, D. (1986). Rethinking the role and status of observation in science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(4), 381-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027860180403
  27. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027980280201
  28. Hodson, D. (1998). Science fiction: The continuing mispresentation of science in the school curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681369800200033
  29. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
  30. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999-1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  31. Kim, Y.-C. (2016). Qualitative research methodology I (3rd ed.). Paju: Academy Press.
  32. Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1, 273-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430277
  33. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  34. Livermore, A. H. (1966). AAAS Commission on science education: Elementary science program. Journal of Chemical Education, 43, 270-272. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed043p270
  35. Millar, R. (1989). What is 'scientific method' and can it be taught? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in science education: A critical analysis (pp. 47-62). London, UK: Routledge.
  36. Millar, R. (1991). A means to an end: The role of processes in science education. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science (pp. 43-52). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
  37. Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 16-31) London, UK: Routledge.
  38. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268708559938
  39. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  40. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  41. Norris, S. P. (1985). The philosophical basis of observation in science and science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(9), 817-833. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220905
  42. Oh, P. S. (2015). A theoretical review and trial application of the 'resources-based view' (RBV) as an alternative cognitive theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 971-984. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.0971
  43. Oh, P. S. (2018). An exploratory study of the ‘method of multiple working hypotheses' as a method of earth scientific inquiry. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 39(5), 501-515. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.5.501
  44. Oh, P. S. (2019). Features of modeling-based abductive reasoning as a disciplinary practice of inquiry in earth science: Cases of novice students solving a geological problem. Science & Education, 28, 731-757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00058-w
  45. Oh, J., & Oh, P. S. (2017). An exploration of the possibility of implementing 'responsive teaching' (RT) in elementary science curriculum. Journal of Koran Elementary Science Education, 36(3), 227-245.
  46. Osborne, J. (1998). Science education without a laboratory? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 156-175). London, UK: Routledge.
  47. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
  48. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understanding its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  49. Sanderson, B. A., & Kratochvil, D. W. (1971). Science-A Process Approach, product development report no. 8. Washington, D.C.: Office of Program Planning and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 064 066)
  50. Sears, P. B., & Kessen, W. (1964). Statement of purposes and objectives of science education in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020104
  51. Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science. New York, NY: Routledge.
  52. Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing "science practice" in learning setting. Science Education, 99(6), 1033-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191
  53. The Ministry of Education (1992). High school curriculum (I). Seoul: The Ministry of Education.
  54. The Ministry of Education (2014). Science 3-1. Seoul: Mirae-N.
  55. The Ministry of Education (2015). Science curriculum. Sejong: The Ministry of Education.
  56. The Ministry of Education (2018a). Science 3-1 teachers' guide. Seoul: Visang.
  57. The Ministry of Education (2018b). Science 3-1. Seoul: Visang.
  58. Wellington, J. J. (1981). ‘What's supposed to happen, sir?' Some problems with discovery learning. School Science Review, 63(222), 167-173.
  59. Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a re-appraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3-15). London, UK: Routledge.
  60. Wideen, M. F. (1975). Comparison of student outcomes for Science-A Process approach and traditional science teaching for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classes: A product evaluation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660120106

Cited by

  1. 2015 개정 교육과정 '과학탐구실험' 평가 도구 및 평가 현황 탐색 vol.40, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.5.515
  2. 학문, 교과, 교과내용, 교과교육 간 관계에 대한 비판적 고찰 -과학교육을 중심으로- vol.40, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.6.671
  3. 행성 궤도의 모양에 관한 중학교 영재 학생들의 증거 기반 추론 vol.42, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5467/jkess.2021.42.1.118
  4. 과학 탐구 수업에서 초등학생들이 바라는 과학 교사의 모습에 대한 요인 분석 vol.40, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2021.40.3.366