Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of the Characteristics of Analogies Generated by Middle School Students Depending on Their Scientific Creativity, Field Independence/dependence, and Learning Approach

과학적 창의성, 장독립성·장의존성, 학습접근양식에 따른 중학생이 생성한 비유의 특징 비교

  • Kim, Minhwan (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Donghwi (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Noh, Taehee (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2017.12.08
  • Accepted : 2017.12.24
  • Published : 2018.02.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the characteristics of analogies generated by middle school students in the perspectives of the number of analogies, the mapping understanding, and the diversity and originality of analogs. We also compared the results by students' scientific creativity, field independence/dependence, and learning approach. Participants in this study were 250 9th graders in Seoul. The analyses of the results revealed that the students of higher scientific creativity generated more analogies, had a higher level of mapping understanding, and used more diverse and original sources. Field independent students had a higher level of mapping understanding. However, the other characteristics of analogies were not related to field independence/dependence. Meaningful understanding approach was related to all the characteristics of analogies, while rote learning approach was not related to any characteristics of analogies. Educational implications of these findings are discussed.

이 연구에서는 중학교 학생들이 생성한 비유의 특징을 비유의 개수와 대응 관계 이해도, 소재의 다양성과 독창성의 측면에서 조사하고, 이 결과를 학생들의 과학적 창의성과 장독립성 장의존성, 학습접근양식에 따라 비교하였다. 서울특별시에 소재한 2개 중학교에 재학 중인 3학년 학생 250명이 연구에 참여하였다. 연구 결과, 과학적 창의성이 높은 학생이 많은 수의 비유를 생성하고, 대응 관계 이해도가 높았으며, 다양하고 독창적인 소재를 활용하였다. 장독립적인 학생이 대응 관계 이해도가 높은 것으로 나타났으나 나머지 특징은 장독립성 장의존성과 관련이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 유의미 학습접근양식은 모든 특징과 관련이 있었으나 기계적 학습접근양식은 모든 특징과 관련이 없었다. 연구 결과를 바탕으로 교육적 함의를 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Haglund, J. Studies in Science Education 2013, 49, 35. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.801119
  2. Wong, E. D. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1993, 30, 367. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300405
  3. Wong, E. D. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1993, 30, 1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301008
  4. Kim, K.; Choi, E.; Cha, J.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2006, 50, 338. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.4.338
  5. Spier-Dance, L.; Mayer-Smith, J.; Dance, N.; Khan, S. Research in Science & Technological Education 2005, 23, 163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500266401
  6. Byun, C.; Kim, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2010, 30, 304.
  7. Kim, D. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2008, 28, 424.
  8. Yoon, J.; Kang, H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2011, 55, 509. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2011.55.3.509
  9. Kang, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2011, 30, 305.
  10. Kim, Y.; Moon, S.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2009, 29, 861.
  11. Noh, T.; Yang, C.; Kang, H. Journal of the Korean Elementary Science Education 2009, 28, 292.
  12. Kang, H.; Cheon, J. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2010, 30, 668.
  13. Kim, K.; Hwang, S.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2008, 52, 412. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2008.52.4.412
  14. Kim, M.; Kwon, H.; Kim, Y.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2017, 37, 39.
  15. Kwon, H.; Choi, E.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2003, 47, 265. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2003.47.3.265
  16. BouJaoude, S.; Tamin, R. Science Educator 2008, 17, 72.
  17. Middleton, J. L. American Biology teacher 1991, 53, 42. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449212
  18. Nottis, K. E. K.; McFarland, J. Electronic Journal of Science Education 2001, 5.
  19. Kim, Y. Development and Application of a Teaching Strategy Using Analogy-generating for Science-gifted Students. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, February 2011.
  20. Noh, T.; Yang, C.; Kang, H. Journal of the Korean Elementary Science Education 2011, 30, 1.
  21. Torrance, E. P. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; Scholastic Testing Services, Inc.: Beaconville, IL, 1990.
  22. Hudson, L. Contrary Imaginations: A Psychological Study of the Young Student; Schocken Books: Oxford, U.K., 1966.
  23. Witkin, H. A.; Moore, C. A.; Goodenough, D. R.; Cox, D. R. Review of Educational Research 1977, 47, 1. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001
  24. Hsu, C. L.; Wedman, J. F. Journal of Research & Development in Education 1994, 28, 1.
  25. Noh, T.; Kim, C.; Kwon, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 1999, 19, 107.
  26. Entwistle, A.; Ramsden, P. Understanding Student Learning; Croom Helm: London, U. K., 1983.
  27. Kim, K.; Ahn, I.; Choi, Y.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2013, 57, 801. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2013.57.6.801
  28. Hu, W.; Adey, P. A. International Journal of Science Education 2002, 24, 389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
  29. Linn, M. C.; Kyllonen, P. Journal of Educational Psychology 1981, 73, 261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.2.261
  30. Cavallo, A. M. L.; Schafer, L. E. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1994, 31, 393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310408
  31. Park, J. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2004, 24, 375.
  32. Biggs, J. B. Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph; Australian Council for Educational Research: Melbourne, AU, 1987.