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 Measurement Tools for Physics Image Using the Semantic Differential Method

의미분석법에 의한 물리 이미지 측정도구 개발 및 적용

  • Received : 2017.09.24
  • Accepted : 2017.12.18
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

An image is a comprehensive result that you have experienced about an object and means the image that you have on the surface of your consciousness. The image of the subject has an important influence on learning the subject. The image analysis of the subjects that the learners have will be good data to decide the direction of teaching and learning. The purpose of this study is to develop and apply measurement tools for physics image and discuss its educational implications. The research method is to develop the measurement tools for the physics image by semantic analysis method and apply it to the secondary pre-service physics teacher. The subjects of the study were 39 first graders, 31 second graders, 37 third graders, and 38 fourth graders at the University of Education, a total of 145 students, 82 of whom were male and 63 were female. The study results show that the image measurement tools for physics consisted of 25 items from five elements: 'interest,' 'feeling,' 'scope,' 'evaluation,' and 'viewpoint.' There were statistically significant differences between the male and female students in applying the measurement tools developed for the physics image of secondary pre-service physics teachers. Male students showed significantly higher statistical significance than female students in the 'interest' and 'feeling' elements of measurement tools for the physics image. In the 'scope' element of measurement tools for the physics image the second grade was statistically higher than the fourth grade. Finally, we discussed educational implications for image analysis of physics and the usefulness of using measurement tools in physics image.

이미지는 대상에 대해 자신이 경험한 종합적인 결과이며 의식의 표면에 갖고 있는 심상을 의미한다. 교과에 대한 이미지는 그 교과를 학습하는 데 중요한 영향을 미친다. 학습자들이 갖고 있는 교과에 대한 이미지 분석은 교수 학습의 방향성을 결정하는 좋은 자료가 될 것이다. 이 연구의 목적은 물리 이미지 측정도구를 개발하고 적용하여 교육적 시사점을 논의하는 데 있다. 연구 방법은 의미분석법에 의해 물리 이미지 측정도구를 개발하고, 중등 예비 물리교사에게 적용한다. 연구 대상은 사범대학교 물리교육 전공 1학년 39명, 2학년 31명, 3학년 37명, 4학년 38명이고, 전체 남학생은 82명, 여학생은 63명 총 145명이다. 연구결과 물리 이미지 측정도구는 '관심', '느낌', '범위', '평가', '관점'의 5개 요소, 25문항으로 구성되었다. 개발한 물리 이미지 측정도구를 중등 예비교사들에게 적용한 결과 성별, 학년별에 따라 요소별로 통계적인 유의미한 차이가 나타났다. 물리 이미지의 '관심', '느낌' 요소에서 남학생이 여학생 보다 통계적으로 유의미하게 높게 나타났다. 학년별에서는 물리 이미지의 '범위' 요소에서 2학년이 4학년보다 통계적으로 높은 것으로 나타났다. 끝으로 물리 이미지 측정도구 활용의 유용성 및 물리 이미지 분석에 대한 교육적 시사점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Choi, H. (2016). Influences of gender, academic track and science achievement on high-school students’ views about physics. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 66(6), 696-704. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.66.696
  2. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213
  3. Ding, Z., & Ng, F. (2008). A new way of developing semantic differential scales with personal construct theory. Construction Management and Economics, 26, 1213-1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802527522
  4. Finson, K. D. (2003). Applicability of the DAST-C to the images of scientists drawn by students of different racial groups. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174741
  5. Fralick, B., Kearn, J., Thompson, S. & Lyons, J. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9133-3
  6. Hazari, Z., Cass, C., & Beattie, C. (2015). Obscuring power structures in the physics classroom: Linking teacher positioning, student engagement, and physics identity development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 735-762. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21214
  7. Huang, Y., & Li, J. (2015). Comparing personal characteristic factors of imagination between expert and novice designers within different product design stages. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9276-x
  8. Ju, E., Lee, S., Kim, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Analysis of images of scientists learning drawn by third grade students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(1), 35-45.
  9. Kang, H., & Kim, M. (2008). Investigating elementary school teachers’ self-images of science teaching. Korean Association for Science Education, 28(5), 464-470.
  10. Kang, H., & Lee, J. (2010). Elementary school students’ images of science class and factors influencing their formations. Korean Association for Science Education, 30(4), 519-531.
  11. Kim, D. (1991). Modern marketing principles. Seoul: Pakyoungsa Publication Co.
  12. Kim, S. (2005). Special education thesis writing. Seoul: Sigmapress Publication Co.
  13. Kim, Y., & Choi, M. (2001). The parent image of children and adolescents by semantic differential technique. Korean Journal of Play Therapy, 11(4), 3-14.
  14. Kim, I., & Chung, Y. (2009a). A study on the image of accounting subjects in business information high school students. Business Education Research, 23(1), 1-28.
  15. Kim, I., & Chung, Y. (2009b). A study on the accounting principles subject image of high school students semantic differential technique -On the basis of business information high school-. Business Education Research, 23(4), 1-17.
  16. Kim, K., & Ham, H. (2016). The attitudes and images of middle school students toward invention. Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0063
  17. Kim, H., & Lee, B. (2003). Why do secondary students perceive physics is uninteresting and difficult? Sae Mulli, 52(6), 521-529.
  18. Kim, H., Park, S., & Kim, Y. (2012). A comparative study of middle school students’ images and perceptions of scientist, technician and engineer. Korean Association for Science Education, 32(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.1.064
  19. Kurt, H. (2013). Determining biology teacher candidates’ conceptual structures about energy and attitudes towards energy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 399-423.
  20. Lee, J., Kim, H., Ju, E., & Lee, S. (2009). The relationship between students’ images of science and science learning and their science career choices. Korean Association for Science Education, 29(8), 934-950.
  21. Lee, K. (2002). Image three kingdoms. Gyeonggi: Dulnyouk Publication Co.
  22. Lee, S. (2016). The change of image on science subjects of high school students studied convergence science by the semantic differential method -focused on chemistry-. Master' thesis. Korea National University of Education. Chung-Buk.
  23. Lee, Y., & Im, S. (2013). University students’self-efficacy about physics learning. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 63(4), 423-431. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.63.423
  24. Lim, J., Jin, Y., & Cho, A. (2016). Youth worker’s image perceived by youth. Forum For Youth Culture, 48, 87-108. https://doi.org/10.17854/ffyc.2016.10.48.87
  25. Mattson, R. E., Rogge, R. D., Johnson, M. D., Davidson, E. K. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). The positive and negative semantic dimensions of relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 328-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01412.x
  26. Mun, K., Mun, J., Shin, S., & Kim, S. (2014). Development and application of high school students’ physics self-efficacy. Korean Association for Science Education, 34(7), 693-701. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.7.0693
  27. Murakami, T., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (2003). Three-mode models and individual differences in semantic differential data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(2), 247-283. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3802_5
  28. Nissen, J. M., & Shemwell, J. T. (2016). Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 1-16.
  29. Norbergh, K. Helin, Y. Dahl, A. Hellze'n, O., & Asplund, K. (2006). Nurses’ attitudes towards people with dementia: The semantic differential technique. Nursing Ethics, 13(3), 264-274. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733006ne863oa
  30. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago University of Illinois press.
  31. Potter, W., Webb, D., Paul, C., West, E., Bowen, M., Weiss, B., Coleman, L., & Leone, C. D. (2014). Sixteen years of collaborative learning through active sense-making in physics (CLASP) at UC Davis. American Journal of Physics, 82(2), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4857435
  32. Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1984). Advertising is image management. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 27-37.
  33. Ryoo, Y., & Choi, Y. (2005). Study on images middle and high school students toward technology education through semantic differential method. The Journal of Practical Arts Education Research, 11(2), 141-156.
  34. Schlag, P. A., Yoder, D. G., & Sheng, Z. (2015). Words matter: A semantic differential study of recreation, leisure, play, activity, and sport. A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 1, 25-38.
  35. Seong, T. (2005). Understanding of educational research methods. Seoul: Hakjisa Publication Co.
  36. Shannon, A. G. (1979). Mathematical attitudes and semantic differentials. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 10(4), 497-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739790100403
  37. Skrandies, W. (2011). The structure of semantic meaning: A developmental study. Japanese Psychological Research, 53(1), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2010.00456.x
  38. Thomas, J. A., Pedersen, J. E., & Finson, K. (2001). Validating the Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C): Exploring mental models and teacher beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 295-310. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014216328867
  39. You, J., & Kwon, D. (2009). The study on the images of elementary school teachers by semantic differential method. The Journal of Elementary Education Studies, 16(1), 85-100.
  40. Williams, C., Stanisstreet, M., Spall, K., Boyes E., & Dickson, D. (2003). Why aren't secondary students interested in physics? Physics Education, 38, 324. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/38/4/306
  41. Zhang, P., Ding, L., & Mazur, E. (2017). Peer Instruction in introductory physics: A method to bring about positive changes in students’ attitudes and beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), 1-9.