Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences

The Korean Space Science Society (한국우주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

THE STRUCTURES AND POSSIBLE SOURCES OF PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' MENTAL MODELS ABOUT MOON PHASES

달의 위상변화에 대한 예비 초등교사의 가능한 정신모형

  • Oh, Jun-Young (Dept. of Earth Science Education, College of Education, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kang, Yong-Hee (Dept. of Earth Science Education, College of Education, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Yoo, Kye-Hwa (Dept. of Earth Science Education, College of Education, Ewha Womans University)
  • 오준영 (경북대학교 사범대학 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 강용희 (경북대학교 사범대학 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 유계화 (이화여자대학교 사범대학 지구과학교육과)
  • Published : 2005.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was to understand the components that influence preservice elementary teachers' mental models about 'astronomical phenomena' such as the Seasons of the year, and the Lunar Phases of the month. We selected university of education students among whom 23 were in the second you. The data collected from the paper-pencil test and individual interview with students. The results of this study show that the students had apparent synthetic Mental models, and that the distance theory, and occultation theory had most important effects on their Mental Models. It can be said that preservice elementary teachers' initial mental models of the' astronomical phenomenon' have their origin in their belief sets (specific theory) related to 'astronomical phenomenon', on the basis of which they can interpret their observations and cultural information with the constraints of a naive framework of physics. The structures and possible sources of their mental models for overcoming these synthetic mental models were also discussed.

본 연구에서는 예비 초등 교사들을 대상으로 달의 위상변화에 대한 정신모형과 그 모형에 영향을 주는 요소들을 조사하였다. 본 연구에 참여한 예비교사는 교육대 학교 1학년(22명)과 2학년(21명) 학생이다. 자료 수집은 지필 검사와 개별 면담을 통해 이루어졌다. 연구 결과, 예비 초등 교사들은 달의 위상변화에 대한 설명들이 과학적 모형과는 다른 합성 정신모형들을 가지고 있었으며, '가리기 이론'이 그들의 정신 모형에 가장 큰 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 예비 초등 교사들이 갖는 천문현상의 합성 정신모형의 구조와 근원을 알아보기 위하여 그들의 정신 모형들을 형성하는 틀 이론과 특정 이론을 집중적으로 탐색하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강용희, 임성규, 오준영 2004, 중등교육연구, 52, 613
  2. 김유신 2000, 인과와 인과이론 (서울: 철학과 현실사), pp.279-334
  3. 명전옥 2001, 한국지구과학회지, 22, 339
  4. 오준영, 박성호 2005, 한국우주과학회지, 23, 69
  5. 오준영, 채동현 2004, 중등교육연구, 52, 427
  6. Beilin, H. 1985, in Genetic Epistemology: Yesterday and Today, ed. T. S. Evans (New York: City University of New York), p.107
  7. Boyd, R. 1985, in Images of Science, eds. P.M. Churchland & C. A. Hooker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp.3-34
  8. Carey, S. & Spelke, E. 1994, in Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, eds. L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp.169-200
  9. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. 1993, Review of Educational research, 63, 1 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
  10. Feigenberg, J., Lavrik, L., & Shunyakov, V. 2002, Science & Education, 11, 377 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016050526156
  11. Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Tekovich, P. R. 1993, The cognitive psychology of school learning (New York: Haper Collins College Pub.), p.512
  12. Glaser, R., Ferguson, E., & Vosniadou, S. 1995, in International perspectives on the construction of technology-supported learning environments, eds. S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Man (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), pp.13-24
  13. Gunstone, R. F. & Mitchell, I. J. 1998, in Teaching science for understanding, eds. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (New York: Academic Press), p.133
  14. Hermann, R. & Lewis, B. F. 2003, The Science Teacher, 70, 51
  15. Hewson, P. W. 1982, European Journal of Science Education, 4, 61 https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528820040108
  16. Laburu, C. E. & Niaz, M. 2002, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 211 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016064301034
  17. Lakatos, I. 1970, in Criticism and the growth of knowledge, eds. I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (New york: Cambridge University Press), pp.91-196
  18. Miller, R. 1987, Fact and Method (Princeton: Princeton University Press). pp.73-83
  19. Niaz, M. 1998, Science & Education, 7, 107 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008671632536
  20. Ohlsson, S. 1999, Science & Education, 8, 559 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008604626856
  21. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. 1982, Science Education, 66, 211 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  22. Spelke, E. S. 1991, in The epigenesis of mind, eds. S. Carey & R. Gelman (Hilsadale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), p.133
  23. Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. 1992. Psychological review, 99, 605 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.605
  24. Spelke, E. S., Philllips, A., & Woodward, A. L. 1995, in Casual cognition: A multidisciplinary debate, eds. D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Oxford, England: Clarnendon Press), pp.44-78
  25. von Wright, G. H. 1971, Explanation and understanding (New York: Cornell University Press), pp.1-3
  26. Vosniadou, S. 1994, Learning and Instruction, 4, 45 https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3
  27. Vosniadou, S. 2001, in Research in Science Education-Past, Present, and Future, eds. H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komoek, A. Kooss, & P. Reiska (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kuwer Academic Publishers), p.177
  28. Vosniadou, S. 2002, Learning and Instruction, 6, 95 https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(96)00008-4
  29. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. 1992, Cognitive psychology, 24, 535 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W
  30. Watson, J. R., Pristo, T., & Dillon, J. S. 1997, Science Education, 81, 425 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<425::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-E