Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Study of the Roles of Smart Devices in Co-Constructing Scientific Models

과학적 모형의 사회적 구성에서 스마트기기의 역할 모색

  • Received : 2017.07.19
  • Accepted : 2017.09.04
  • Published : 2017.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the previous studies on co-constructing scientific models, students have had various difficulties in constructing their models. As an alternative to compensate for these problems, we introduced smart devices in the modeling process and examined its roles. 60 students from two classes in the fifth grade of an elementary school in Seoul had classes to make up the solar system model in a small group using the smart devices and we examined the roles of smart devices in their classes. The result is as follows; First, students were able to generate their scientific model through various functions of smart devices throughout the modeling process. In particular, smart devices provide highly descriptive and authoritative information that meets the needs of students as well as the opportunity to observe the planets from various perspectives. Moreover, they were not only able to express their models easily as they wanted to express them, but also were able to receive feedbacks from various agents. In order for these smart devices to function properly in the co-construction of scientific models, it is necessary to improve the related environment as well as students' technological literacy.

과학적 모형의 사회적 구성과 관련한 기존 연구에서는 학생들이 모형을 형성하는 과정에서 다양한 난점들이 나타났는데, 이 연구에서는 이를 보완할 수 있는 대체 방안으로서 스마트 기기를 도입하여 그 역할을 살펴보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 서울시 소재의 초등학교 5학년 2개 학급 60명을 대상으로 하여 스마트기기를 도입, 태양계 모형을 구성하는 수업 실시하여 그 역할을 살펴보았다. 연구 결과, 모형 형성 과정 전반에서 학생들은 스마트기기의 다양한 기능을 통해 모형 형성을 할 수 있었다. 특히 스마트기기는 학생들의 요구에 맞는 설명력이 높고 권위 있는 정보를 제공했으며, 상호작용이 가능한 3D이미지를 활용하여 학생들이 원하는 다양한 시각에서 행성을 관찰할 수 있는 기회를 제공했다. 또한 자신이 표현하고자 하는 바를 수월하게 표현하고 공유할 수 있는 방법을 제공하였으며, 스마트기기의 온라인 게시판 기능을 통해 다양한 교육 주체들이 모형 구성 과정에 참여하여 더 나은 모형을 형성할 수 있도록 도울 수 있다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 그러나 이러한 스마트기기의 역할이 제대로 이뤄지기 위해서는 관련 환경 개선이 필요하고, 학생들의 관련 기술적 소양 향상이 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bae, D., & Yoo, J. (2012). Middle school students' learning progression for scientific modeling force and motion. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 62(8), 809-825. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.62.809
  2. Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapunagavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Mind and Machines, 8(1), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008242619231
  3. Cho, H. S. & Nam, J. (2014). The impact of the argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing implemented in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 583-592. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0583
  4. Clement, J. (2008a). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Springer Science & Business Media.
  5. Clement, J. (2008b). Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models in large group discussion. In Gilbert, J., Rea-ramirez, M. A. (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 11-22). Springer Netherlands.
  6. Dugger, W. E., & Gilberti, A. F. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Technology Teacher, 59(5), 8-13.
  7. Dyrenfurth, M. J., & Kozak, M. R. (1991). Technological literacy. Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
  8. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
  9. Fuller, S. (2015). Social Epistemology of Science. Encyclopedia of Science Education, 973-975.
  10. Giere, R. N. (2010). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press.
  11. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In Gilbert, J. (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9-27). Springer Netherlands.
  12. Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In Gilbert, J., Reiner, M., & Nakhler, M. (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 3-24). Springer Netherlands.
  13. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling. International handbook of science education, 2, 53-66.
  14. Halloun, I. (2007). Modeling Theory in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  15. Han, M. H. & Kim, H. B. (2013). The role of teacher's question prompt in elementary students' "food web" modeling. Biology Education, 41(2), 296-309. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.2.296
  16. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884
  17. Huang, Y. M., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (2010). Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers & Education, 54(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.006
  18. Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130206
  19. Jeng, Y. L., Wu, T. T., Huang, Y. M., Tan, Q., & Yang, S. J. (2010). The Add-on Impact of Mobile Applications in Learning Strategies: A Review Study. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 3-11.
  20. Ju, S. H. (2011) Virtuality & Reality. Telecommunications Technology Association Journal, 133, 44-49.
  21. Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P. O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In Fraser, B., Tobin, K., and McRobbie, C.J. (Ed.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 281-291). Springer Netherlands.
  22. Khan, S. (2008). Co-construction and model evolution in chemistry. In Clement, J., Rea-Ramirez, M.A. (Ed.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 59-78). Springer Netherlands.
  23. Kim, M. Y. & Kim, H. B. (2007). A multidimensional analysis of conceptual change for blood circulation in model-based instruction. Biology Education, 35(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2007.35.3.407
  24. Kim, S., Yang, I., & Lim, S. (2013). Analysis of change in elementary students' mental models about the causes of the seasonal change. The Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(5), 893-910. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.893
  25. Kimn, H. J. (2010). Remarks on visualizations of 3D virtual reality. Journal of Korea Multimedia Society, 14(4), 88-98.
  26. Kongju National University Research Institute for Science Education. (2001). Virtual reality & science education. Kongju National University Research Institute for Science Education, Daejeon: Boseong.
  27. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological review, 96(4), 674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674
  28. Lawless, J. G., & Rock, B. N. (1998). Student scientist partnerships and data quality. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022575914118
  29. Lee, S., Kim, C. J., Choe, S. U., Yoo, J. H., Park, H., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2012). Exploring the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 805-822. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.805
  30. Leem, J. (2001). An analytical study on the concept of virtual education and cyber education. Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 165-194.
  31. Lim, K. (2011). Research on developing instructional design models for enhancing smart learning. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 14(2), 33-45.
  32. Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2011). Helping students construct robust conceptual models. In Gilbert, J. (Ed.), Models and Modeling (pp. 99-120). Springer Netherlands.
  33. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  34. Nersessian, N. J. (2010). Creating scientific concepts. MIT press.
  35. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the Metaphor of Scaffolding Fresh--A Response to C. Addison Stone's "The Metaphor of Scaffolding Its Utility for the Field of Learning Disabilities". Journal of learning disabilities, 31(4), 370-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100406
  36. Park, H. K., Choi, J. R., Kim, C. J., Kim, H. B., Yoo, J., Jang, S., & Choe, S. U. (2016). The change in modeling ability of science-gifted students through the co-construction of scientific model. Journal of he Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0015
  37. Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.791
  38. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 39(3), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10020
  39. Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-Based Inquiry and School Science: Creating Connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17870.x
  40. Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2008). The role of mobile devices in facilitating collaborative inquiry in situ. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(03), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206808000525
  41. Ryu, S., Han, Y., & Paik, S. H. (2015). Understanding co-development of conceptual and epistemic understanding through modeling practices with mobile internet. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 330-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9545-1
  42. Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children's judgments in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90021-9
  43. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  44. Schweingruber, H. A., Shouse, A. W., Michaels, S., & National Research Council. (2007). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academies Press.
  45. Shih, J. L., Chu, H. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). An investigation of attitudes of students and teachers about participating in a context-aware ubiquitous learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 373-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01020.x
  46. Shim, Y., Kim, C. J., Choe, S. U., Kim, H. B., Yoo, J. H., Park, H., Kim, H., Park, K. M., & Jang, S. (2015). Exploring Small group features of the social-construction process of scientific model in a combustion class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0217
  47. Simpson, W. D., & Marek, E. A. (1988). Understandings and misconceptions of biology concepts held by students attending small high schools and students attending large high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250504
  48. Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism (p. 186). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  49. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
  50. Yang C., Jo, M., & Noh, T. (2015). Investigation of teaching practices using smart technologies and science teachers' opinion on their application in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(5), 829-840. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0829
  51. Yu, H. W., Ham, D. C., Cha, H. J., Kim, M. S., Kim, H. B., Yoo, J., H., Park, H. J., Kim, C. J., & Choe, S. U. (2012). Model creation and model developing process of science gifted students in scientific model constructing class for phase change of the moon. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(2), 291-315. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.2.291
  52. Yun, J., Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2016). The effects of small group learning using smart devices in science classes. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 519-526. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0519

Cited by

  1. A Study on the Roles of Technology as Cognitive Tools in the Project-based Learning in Secondary School Geography Classrooms vol.26, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.17279/jkagee.2018.26.3.1
  2. 온라인 과학 수업에서 실험 활동과 상호작용의 개선을 위한 실행연구 vol.14, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2021.14.2.159