Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Conceptual Understanding Process for Electric Circuit of Elementary Science-gifted Students using Dynamic Science Assessment

역동적 과학 평가를 통한 초등과학 영재들의 전기회로 개념 이해 과정 분석

  • Received : 2012.08.06
  • Accepted : 2012.09.25
  • Published : 2012.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was exploring instructive methods to make each gifted child's ability develop as more by selecting the dynamic method instead of existing static method in teaching and evaluating science-gifted students in elementary school and by analyzing conceptual change of electric circuit. In this research, 11 science-gifted students in primary school were chosen, and Dynamic Science Assessment(DSA) intended to comprehension of scientific electric circuit concept was performed as focusing on scaffolding aspects in order to find the transition process. And then, the features on transition process of students' concept were analyzed in quality. The results of the study were checked that the features of useful scaffolding input with respect to comprehending concepts of science gifted-students by using DSA. The less familiar to approach the subjects, the more presented numbers of scaffolding showed. As coming toward transition and same questions, scaffoldings (interactions) were declined because their level of transition was higher than before. Various ways were used in helping the students comprehend the concept on the method of connecting electric circuit and the emitting amount of current, which acted to adapt to daily life.

이 연구의 목적은 초등 과학 영재를 교수 및 평가하는 데 있어 종래의 정적 방법이 아닌 역동적 방법을 채택하여 전기회로 개념 이해 과정을 분석해 보는 것이다. 초등 과학 영재 11명을 대상으로 과학적인 전기회로 개념으로의 이해를 의도한 역동적 과학 평가를 실시하여 스캐폴딩 양상을 중심으로 변화 과정을 알아보고, 영재학생의 개념 변화 과정에서 나타나는 특징을 분석하였다. 연구 결과 첫째, 역동적 과학 평가를 통해 초등 과학영재의 개념 이해에 유용한 스캐폴딩 투입 특성을 확인하였다. 둘째, 역동적 과학 평가 전략에 의한 개념 정립이 개별 학생의 특성에 따라 다양한 방식으로 나타났다. 셋째, 전기회로 개념 이해의 각 장면에서 효과적으로 작용했던 전략을 확인할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김정환, 박도영 (2001). 학습자의 지.정.의 특성과 학업성취도에 대한 구조방정식 모형. 교육학 연구, 39(1), 147-166.
  2. 박종원 (2003). 학생개념의 연속적 세련화와 정교화를 통한 변화 과정-대학생반응 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(3), 276-285.
  3. 서혜애 (2004). 과학적 창의성과 과학영재교육의 방향. 영재교육연구, 14(1), 65-89.
  4. 이정숙, 원복순, 김소연, 김중복 (2009). 비전형적 상황에서의 전기 회로에 관한 초등학생들의 인식. 새물리, 58(2), 101-109.
  5. 이정철, 강순민, 허옹욱 (2009). 한국과학영재학교 학생들의 과학적 태도, 학습양식, 선호하는 수업형태와 수업환경 조사를 통한 수업전략의 수립. 영재교육연구, 19(1), 138-159.
  6. 한순미 (1997). 역동적 평가의 문제와 발전방안. 교육평가연구, 10(2), 53-79.
  7. 홍준의, 이인호, 전영석 (2007). 초등학교 과학영재 학생의 탐구능력 수행 분석. 초등과학교육, 26(3), 267-275.
  8. Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hebert, T. P. (1994). Reversing under achievement: Stories of success. Educational Leadership, 52(3). 48-53.
  9. Brown, A.L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development: In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Bull, K. S., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C., & Griffin, J. (1999). Process for Developing Scaffolding in a Computer Mediated Learning Environment. Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education(ACRES). 19, Albuquerque, New Maxico.
  11. Chi, M. T., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon, & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  12. Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (1997). Determining and interpreting resistive electric circuits concepts test ver.1.2. North Carolina: North Carolina State University.
  13. Tsaparlis, G., & Papaphotis, G. (2009). High-school Students' Conceptual Difficulties and Attempts at Conceptual Change: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 895-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801891908
  14. Havu, S. (2005). Examining young children's conceptual change process in floating and sinking from a social constructive perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243736
  15. Heller, P., & Finley, F. N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case-study in current electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 259-275. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290306
  16. Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. G. (2006). An Alternative Approach to the Identification of Gifted Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners: The Contribution of Dynamic Assessment. Gifted education international, 21(2), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940602100307
  17. Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Science, 6(1), 91-142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0601_5
  18. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. London: Aspen Systems Corporation.
  19. Mansfield, R., & Busse, J. (1981). The Psychlogy if Greatinity and Discovery: Scientists and their work. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
  20. McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596593
  21. Millar, R., & Beh, K. L. (1993). Students' understanding of voltage in simple parallel electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 351-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150401
  22. Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky's theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment: An International Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. NY: Guilford Press.
  23. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washingtion, DC: National Academy Press.
  24. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  25. Shaffer, P. S., & Mcdermott, L. C. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60, 994-1003. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17003
  26. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1990), Performance assessment in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 347-362.
  27. Shipstone, D. M., Rhoneck, C. V., Jung, W., Karrqvist, C., Dupin, J. J., Johsua, S., & Licht, P. (1988). A study of students' understanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100306
  28. Stanley, N. V., Seigel, j, Cooper, L., & Marshall, K. (1995). Identification of gifted with the Dynamic Assessment Prcedure. Gifted Education International, 10(2), 85-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142949501000209
  29. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I., (1993). Creative giftedness: A multi-variate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700102
  30. Troxclair, D. A. (2000). Differentiating instruction for gifted students in regular education social studies classes. Roeper Review, 22(3), 195-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554033
  31. Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naive physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers.
  32. Webb, P. (1992). Primary science teachers'understandings of electric current. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 423-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140405