한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제25권3호
  • /
  • Pages.400-410
  • /
  • 2005
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지

작용 반작용 과제에서 고등학생의 인지갈등 불안유형에 따른 설명가설 형성의 특성(II)

Characteristics of Explanatory Hypothesis Formation by Anxiety Types in High School Students Cognitive Conflict about Action-Reaction Task (II)

  • 발행 : 2005.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

인지갈등 과정모형에 근거하면 불안요인은 개념변화 학습을 위한 갈등상황에서 학생들의 반응 행동에 이중적(긍정적 부정적) 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 그러나 인지갈등 해소를 위하여 단계적 실험을 수행할 때, 어떤 불안유형이 긍정적인 또는 부정적인 유형인지 보고한 연구는 거의 없는 실정이다. 이 연구에서는 작용과 반작용 개념과 관련된 단계적 실험을 수행한 학생들이 불안유형에 따라 설명가설을 제안하는 특성이 어떻게 나타나는 가를 알아보았다. 연구결과, 논리적 오개념 확신형, 변안추가 시도형, 합리적 수정형의 학생들은 단계적 실험 이후 물리적 본성에 가까운 가설을 제안 할 수 있었다. 반면 다섯 가지 유형 (예측결과 양립형, 타인 의존형, 과거경험 융합형, 자신감 부족형, 과거경험 충돌형 등)의 학생들은 임시적 보조가설이나 학생의 직관과 실험 관찰에 근거한 단편적 설명가설을 제안하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 통해 불일치 상황을 이용하는 개념변화 학습에서 단계적 실험을 이용할 경우, 이들 다섯 가지 유형의 학생들은 불안유형에 근거한 교사와의 적극적인 상호작용이 필요함을 제안하고, 인지갈등 해소를 위하여 단계적 실험을 사용할 때 교사가 보다 주의해야 할 학생들의 반응 특성을 제시하였다.

According to the cognitive conflict process model, student anxiety factor is known to have both positive and negative effects on student response behaviors in a conflict situation for conceptual change learning. However, there is little research that reveals what type of anxiety, either constructive or destructive, is related when conducting step-by-step experiments to resolve cognitive conflicts. This study attempted to learn the characteristic of explanatory hypothesis according to anxiety type after conducting five step-by-step experiments related to action and reaction concept. Results found that students who belonged to the types of 'conviction in logical misconception', 'insisting on additional variables', and 'reasonable modification' suggested explanatory hypothesis close to physical nature. On the other hand, those who showed the other five types of anxiety ('compatible predictions', 'dependence on others', 'fusion of past experience', 'lack of confidence', and 'conflict with past experience') suggested temporary supported hypothesis or simple explanatory hypothesis according to student intuition and simple observation. These results indicate that students in the above-mentioned five categories need more external interactions with instructors based on the type of anxiety related to student behavior. In addition, the results present student characteristics which instructors should be more attentive to when using step-by-step experiments to resolve cognitive conflicts.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 권재술, 박학규, 김준태, 이영직, 이경호 (2000). 과학학습에서 불일치 상황에 대면한 학생들의 인지갈등 특성(수준 및 유형)과 반응 유형의 관계 분석. 한국교원대학교 부설 교과교육공동연구소, 연구보고. RR 98-VI-11
  2. 권재술, 이경호, 김연수 (2003). 인지갈등과 개념변화의 필요조건과 충분조건. 한국과학교육학회지 23, 574-591
  3. 김연수 (2002). 인지갈등 불안유형과 귀인의 동기 심리학적 요인에 따른 학생의 물리개념 변화 특성. 한국교원대학교 박사학위논문
  4. 박종원 (2000) 학생의 과학적 설명가설의 생성과정 분석 . 과학적 가설의 정의와 특성을 중심으로 - 한국과학교육학회지, 20, 667-679
  5. 박종원 (2001). 학생의 과학적 설명가설의 생성과정 분석 . 대학생의 반응 분석을 중심으로- 한국과학교육학회지 21 , 609-621
  6. 박종원, 장병기, 윤혜경, 박승재 (1993). 중학생의 빛과 그림자에 대한 증거평가. 한국과학교육학회지, 13, 135-145
  7. 박지연, 이경호 (2004). 과학개념변화 연구에서 학생의 개념에 대한 이해: 오개념(misconception)에서 정신모형(metal model)까지. 한국과학교육학회지, 24, 621-637
  8. 신상우 (2004). 작용 . 반작용 과제에서 불일치 현상에 대면한 실업계 고등학생의 인지갈등 특성. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문
  9. 신상우, 김연수, 권재술 (2005). 작용 . 반작용 과제에서 불일치 현상에 대면한 실업계 고등학생의 인지갈등 특성. 한국과학교육학회지, 25, 편집중
  10. 인지갈등전략연구회 (2003). 선풍기를 이용하여 무풍지대를 빠져나올 수 있을까. 제 44차 한국과학교육학회 정기총회 및 하계학술대회 워크숍, 151-153
  11. 인지갈등전략연구회 (2004). 하늘을 나는 선풍기. 제 46차 한국과학교육학회 정기총회 및 하계학술대회 워크숍, 160-163
  12. 조용현, 김연수, 권재술 (2004). 작용 반작용 과제에서 고등학생의 인지갈등 불안유형에 따른 설명가설 형성의 특성(I). 한국과학교육학회지, 24, 596-611
  13. Berlyne, D. (1957). Uncertainty and conflict: A point of contact between information theory and behavior theory concepts. Psychological Review, 64, 329-339 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041135
  14. Bruner, J. (1961). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  15. Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance, Contemporary Educational Psychology. 27, 270-295 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
  16. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1
  17. Clark, R. B. (1986a). The answer in obvious, isn't it? The Physics Teacher, 24, 38-39 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2341931
  18. Clark, R. B. (1986b). Response. The Physics Teacher, 24, 393
  19. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovith, R. (1990). Applying the 'cognitive conflict' strategy for conceptual change: Some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science education, 74, 555-569 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740506
  20. Duit, R. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
  21. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, and treatment of test anxiety, Review of Educational Research. 58, 47-77 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058001047
  22. Hewitt, P. (1988). Figuring physics. The Physics Teacher, 26(1), 57-58
  23. Hewitt, P. (2003). Conceptual physics. (9th Ed.). Addition-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
  24. Hong, E., & Karstensson, L. (2002). Antecedents of state test anxiety, Contemporary Educational Psychology. 27, 348-367 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1095
  25. Jargodzki, C., & Potter, F. (2001). Mad about physics: braintwisters, paradoxes, and curiosities. New York: John Willey
  26. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch & P.T. Coleman (Ed.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
  27. Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2004a). Development of an instrument for evaluating anxiety caused by cognitive conflict. The Program of Physics Education Research Conference 2004, 18
  28. Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2004b). Student anxiety types in cognitive conflict situations and conceptual change. AAPT Announcer, Vol. 34(2), pp. 133
  29. Kim, Y., Cho, Y., Shin, S., Kwon, J., & Bao, L. (2004). Anxiety Types in Cognitive Conflict at Action and Reaction Task, AAPT Announcer, 34(2), 132
  30. Kim, Y., & Kwon, J. (2004). Cognitive conflict and causal attributions to successful conceptual change in physics learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24, 687-708
  31. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2003). Toward an understanding and use of cognitive conflict in science instruction (I). Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23, 360-374
  32. Lee, G, H., Kwon, J, S., Park, S. S., Kim, J. W., Kwon, H. G., & Park, H. K. (2003). Development of an Instrument for Measuring Cognitive Conflict in Secondary-Level Science Classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 585-603 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099
  33. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2004). How does cognitive conflict affect conceptual change process in high school physics classrooms? Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24, 1-16
  34. Liebert, R., & Morris, L. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data, Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978
  35. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
  36. Marchant, E. C. (1974). Xenophon, Memorabilia(Leob). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  37. Martinez, K., & Schulkins, M. (1986). The H.M.S. Newton III: an onboard-fan-powered sail cart. The Physics Teacher, 24(7), 393
  38. Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: towards systemic model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14, 519-534 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.016
  39. McDermott, L. C; & The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington (1996). Physics by Inquiry (Vol. I . Il ), New York: Wiley
  40. McDermott, L. C. (2001). Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: 'Physics Education Research - The Key to Student Learning'. The American Journal of Physics, 69, 1127-1137 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1389280
  41. McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I. Investigation of student understanding. The American Journal of Physics, 60, 994-1003 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17003
  42. Movshovitz-Hadar, N., & Hadass, R. (1990). Preservice education of math teachers using paradoxes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 265-287 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305093
  43. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt
  44. Rutledge, C. T. (1986). The obvious answer is correct! The Physics Teacher, 24(7), 393 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2342060
  45. Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II. Design of instructional strategies. The American Journal of Physics, 60, 1003-1013 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16979
  46. Sinatra, G. M. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  47. Spielberger, C. (1972). Experimental approaches to test anxiety; Attention and the uses of information. In C. D. Spielberger(Ed.), Anxiety; Current trends in theory and research, (Vol. 2), N. Y: Academic press
  48. Spielberger, C., & Vagg, P. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. Spielberger & P. Vagg (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 3-14). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis
  49. Stipek, D. J. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice(4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
  50. Wallingford (1986). Obvious?? The Physics Teacher, 24, 392